# Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?



## Listening

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

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.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.


----------



## norwegen

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.


----------



## percysunshine

*Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? *

Define 'Government'.

From a general evolution point of view, Australopithecus never had to produce a voter ID.

.


----------



## Listening

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



This is from Thomas Jefferson:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

In Federalist 2: John Jay states:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. 

Now, I would be curious to know how government does not secure our rights..

And how securing them and leaving them alone are somehow mutually exclusive.


----------



## TheOldSchool

The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights


----------



## Mojo2

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



No, Govt. is supposed to enforce the laws which protect and assure those rights.


----------



## Listening

percysunshine said:


> *Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? *
> 
> Define 'Government'.
> 
> From a general evolution point of view, Australopithecus never had to produce a voter ID.
> 
> .



Government is characterized in many ways.

George Washington stated:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Read more at Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous... - George Washington at BrainyQuote


----------



## Mojo2

TheOldSchool said:


> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights



No, Muslim countries and dictatorships have a different definition than Americans and other free societies.


----------



## Listening

TheOldSchool said:


> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights



Be that as it may, government is still necessary to secure those rights.

Is there a set of natural rights government is not necessary to secure ?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

"rights" are a human construct. 

They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it. 

"Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



to be clear, we don't need a vast central government with unchecked power.

we can self govern on a local level.

If I want to bang a drum at 3am, I should live away from people who want to sleep or have a special room.

with no government, I can bang my drum all I want when I want as long as I'm meaner than those around me.


no government = strongest rule = tyranny
to much government = elitist rule = tyranny


we were doing it right long ago, in the very early 1900's, but now the Fed has taken over, and things are getting bad, as planned.


----------



## percysunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> "rights" are a human construct.
> 
> They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.
> 
> "Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.



So, would you say that Government bestows rights on the individual?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

While one may have inalienable rights ones rights mean nothing without some means to insure the rights are not taken away by someone, some group or some entity.


----------



## norwegen

Listening said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.
> 
> In Federalist 2: John Jay states:
> 
> Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.
> 
> Now, I would be curious to know how government does not secure our rights..
> 
> And how securing them and leaving them alone are somehow mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're quite right.  I was mistaken, supposing that by securing our rights, government grants them.  Though the Constitution secures our rights against the government (_i.e._, the government is supposed to leave them alone), the government is supposed to secure them against other people.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

percysunshine said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> "rights" are a human construct.
> 
> They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.
> 
> "Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you say that Government bestows rights on the individual?
Click to expand...


If governments "bestowed" rights, we wouldn't have to fight for them, now would we?

Governments are all about money and power. That's why the 1% fight against allowing even the smallest improvement to the lives of who they consider to be the servant class - you and I. They own government and government works to own us.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., _Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence_ (1984), restricting the right to freedom of assembly.) 

In the United States the Constitution codifies our rights in the context of its case law, placing limits on the extent to which government may indeed restrict our rights. 

It is this balance between the rights of the individual and the authority of government, both subject to the rule of law, which safeguards our civil liberties. 

The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (_McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819)), and the people clearly intended and authorized government to form a more perfect Union, through laws and measures enacted pursuant to the Constitution and its case law.  

The issue, therefore, is not [g]overnment is supposed to leave our rights alone, rather, its the doctrine of judicial review which acknowledges the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court and compelling government to justify its efforts to place restrictions on citizens civil liberties, and when the government fails to justify those restrictions, the restrictions are invalidated. 

The the proper role of government,' consequently, is whatever the people and the courts determine it to be, through the democratic process and elections, or through the process of judicial review in the courts, and often times and ideally, both.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



The form of government that exists doesn't change the fact that people had rights. If it did Obama would be called out as a hypocrite for claiming that the people of Crimea have the right to self determination and every slave revolt in history would be wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

TheOldSchool said:


> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights



The definition of natural rights are those rights that exist because you are alive. I bet you can't find anyone that has a problem with that definition.


----------



## The Rabbi

Luddly Neddite said:


> "rights" are a human construct.
> 
> They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.
> 
> "Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.



Wow, who'd think I'd actually agree with you one day??  Shocked.  But you are correct.  Rights are a societal construct, and reflective of people's general beliefs.  Which is why we need to battle for them constantly.  Ive discussed this often and always get to the point that no one can define the difference between rights being denied and not having rights at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Listening said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be that as it may, government is still necessary to secure those rights.
> 
> Is there a set of natural rights government is not necessary to secure ?
Click to expand...


All of them.

The only thing government can actually accomplish is attempting to take away rights.


----------



## dblack

Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures. 

An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk



But Jefferson was full of shit.  It wasn't him, of course. He was a product of his times. But it is instructive that no society ever produced the notion of "rights" as understood by the Founders until the Enlightenment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> "rights" are a human construct.
> 
> They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.
> 
> "Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.



You really need to get over your reflexive hatred of religion whenever anyone starts a discussion.

Natural rights come from you, not other humans, or government. The proof of that is that you are alive despite the fact that no one on the planet gave you permission to breathe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute
Click to expand...


Just because you allow other people to control your rights does not mean I do.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.
Click to expand...


How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


As said, rights are a construct of society.  Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire.  The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights.  They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.


----------



## beagle9

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.


Hmmm, but isn't governments function supposed to be to protect ones individual rights as based upon years of understanding what those rights are ?  Otherwise if the rights are challenged by another, and this also being based upon years of understanding what those protections & rights are, then there should be no question of these things, and to how it all works.  Now what seems to be happening is another form of government is being created now, and therefore it's interpretations are changing as to how ones rights are to be protected, and to what rights it feels a person is entitled to, and what they are not entitled to any longer. Now if we allow this to be the new way of America, and the new American government who has taken this new path, then confusion will reign supreme for those who are living in the past.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As said, rights are a construct of society.  Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire.  The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights.  They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.
Click to expand...


You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting  aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us. 

It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As said, rights are a construct of society.  Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire.  The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights.  They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting  aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.
> 
> It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.
Click to expand...


Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
What are the source for these rights?
What do they consist of?
How do we know what they are?
No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.


----------



## percysunshine

Luddly Neddite said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> "rights" are a human construct.
> 
> They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.
> 
> "Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you say that Government bestows rights on the individual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governments "bestowed" rights, we wouldn't have to fight for them, now would we?
> 
> Governments are all about money and power. That's why the 1% fight against allowing even the smallest improvement to the lives of who they consider to be the servant class - you and I. They own government and government works to own us.
Click to expand...



Luddly. I promise not to tell anyone that you are a conservative. We will keep this a secret. Only between us....

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> As said, rights are a construct of society.  Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire.  The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights.  They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting  aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.
> 
> It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
> What are the source for these rights?
> What do they consist of?
> How do we know what they are?
> No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.
Click to expand...


Why is it unprovable? Can you show me one example of a government ever giving anyone life?


----------



## BobPlumb

One natural right people have is the right to self defense.  This right exist with or without government.


----------



## Politico

Listening said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be that as it may, government is still necessary to secure those rights.
> 
> Is there a set of natural rights government is not necessary to secure ?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## Crystalclear

BobPlumb said:


> One natural right people have is the right to self defense.  This right exist with or without government.



Totally agree with this one.


----------



## beagle9

BobPlumb said:


> One natural right people have is the right to self defense.  This right exist with or without government.


Yep, and that right lay within the hands of the defender always, and this regardless of the consequences afterwards. It is called "bravery" in order to stand up and to uphold what one believes in. The other is called courage. These things are built in.


----------



## Intense

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704

      Introduction
      CHAP. I.
      CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
      CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
      CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
      CHAP. V. Of Property.
      CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
      CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
      CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
      CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
      CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
      CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
      CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
      CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
      CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
      CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
      CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
      CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
      CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
      CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government


----------



## Mojo2

Luddly Neddite said:


> "rights" are a human construct.
> 
> They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.
> 
> *"Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.*



And your posts, characteristically, do nothing to help preserve those rights.

The unbrideled intentional attempt at deception (or unintentional ignorance) of this post of yours is breathtaking.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting  aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.
> 
> It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
> What are the source for these rights?
> What do they consist of?
> How do we know what they are?
> No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it unprovable? Can you show me one example of a government ever giving anyone life?
Click to expand...


Huh?
What is unprovable is that such rights exist at all.


----------



## The Rabbi

Crystalclear said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> One natural right people have is the right to self defense.  This right exist with or without government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree with this one.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  In Europe there is no such thing. They hold by the ancient Christian precept that killing is murder.  Thus there is no right of self defense as we understand it.
Further, what are the parameters of that right?  In America if you know someone is plotting to hurt or kill you you cannot go and hunt that person down.  That is considered murder.  But in biblical law that is appropriate.


----------



## Connery

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.




Generally, the less government intervention the more inherent rights people have. While there are certain issues that only government can legislate for, such legislation later becomes all inclusive and then reduces the  amount of rights for the general populace.

Government or any universal intervention only inhibits the ability of a society to evolve and develop their own laws/rights. 

No organization, governing body or system of rules can better insure the "rights" of a person than the person themselves. Nothing can keep the human spirit down and crush the desire to flourish and be exercise those rights.


----------



## Abatis

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



You really need to read Locke and Sidney (and the oppositional, absolutist treatises of Hobbes and Filmer and Bodin) . . . 

Natural rights are those unencumbered freedoms humans posses when they are in a "state of nature", *before they enter society*.  These are absolute and without restriction because there is no authority entity to constrain the exercise of those rights.

Humans, being social animals like to be together and humans understand that with combination, benefits are realized, like security, division of work, stability.  To realize these benefits each member must surrender some of his own absolute freedoms to the social compact because now, one's absolute natural rights, to act in any manner he wishes, are limited by the rights of others.

This is the fundamental premise for the governmental model established on *legitimacy *. . . the principle that government cannot be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because a legitimate government only emanates from consent of the governed; government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly.

The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society because no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life or property of another.

Under these principles, government only keeps that power with the consent of the governed and the citizens retained all interests not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be inherent (as we possessed all powers and rights in a state of nature and brought them to the compact) and among those inherent rights a subset, called un/inalienable rights, were deemed to be of such intrinsic value to being human that a person, even willingly, cannot confer them to the care and control of another person.

Inalienable is a term focused on legitimacy; a person cannot legitimately confer to government the care of his life, liberty or fruits of his labor. Inalienable also denotes legitimacy of action for government because no legitimate government would ever accept such a surrender by a citizen.

"Inalienable rights" is a concept of importance primarily at the genesis of the social compact / contract. Once the foundational principles have been agreed upon and the government's powers have been set-out and limited by that enumeration (in a constitution), inalienable rights become relatively moot because their status has unalterably been codified. The only concern is whether they are being violated and the only enforcers of violations are the people . . .

Inalienable really has nothing to do with whether a particular right can be violated by government . . . Of course it can, that's a given. The term again is centered on legitimacy; when an inalienable right is violated, that government is no longer operating according to the principles of its establishment, thus it has lost its legitimacy to govern. It is then subject to the people's original right to rescind their consent to be governed and retake the powers originally conferred (employing the right of original self defense, never surrendered).

In the final analysis, one must understand that "inalienable rights" is a meaningless concept if there is not a government being established to *NOT* surrender rights to.

It makes no sense to apply the term or use it in the context of people living under say, a monarchy or a dictatorship or a theocracy. . . It is at its core, a refutation of monarchy and all authoritarian rule.

Even more nonsensical is a modern enlightened socialist/communitarian/anarchist discussing the term only to deny the existence of inalienable rights (well DUH).


----------



## Abatis

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



With that derogatory claim, this statement is nonsensical.

According to you, in the context of the above, what the heck do liberals get right?

To me, the modern US left is all about denigrating / dismissing negative rights and promoting second and third generation positive rights.  

That's neither "leaving rights alone" nor "securing them" . . .


----------



## Abatis

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.  It wasn't him, of course. He was a product of his times. But it is instructive that no society ever produced the notion of "rights" as understood by the Founders until the Enlightenment.
Click to expand...


So what? 

Locke and Sidney arguing for "inherent rights" challenged the then controlling doctrine of the "divine right" of a King to rule however he desired . . . 

Are you saying that humans should have just stuck with absolutism?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



Without government informing us what our rights might be, or not be, the only law in effect is the law of the jungle. We're animals, and if you have something I want, I might opt to simply take it, and if you resist me you do so at your peril (purely a hypothetical.) Can't imagine many like government of any stripe telling you what you can or can't do, but they do protect us well from the alternative.

As mere animals, we don't have any 'inalienable rights.' Since without a government to write them down they simply don't exist in nature. Big fish eat little fish is what it boils down to. But no fish are backing away from an easy meal out of some observance of the little fish's right to exist and be happy (and not be eaten.) Even WITH religion that right doesn't exist.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

dblack said:


> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk



If that were true, no one ever had to leave England. 



> One natural right people have is the right to self defense. This right exist with or without government.



If self defense is a right, so is the fear of falling. You're confusing law with the drives we're born with. Self defense is a drive, an instinct.


----------



## Abatis

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> As said, rights are a construct of society.  Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire.  The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights.  They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting  aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.
> 
> It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
> What are the source for these rights?
> What do they consist of?
> How do we know what they are?
> No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.
Click to expand...


That a governmental model is based on the existence of philosophical constructs and the government's powers are structured to recognize and respect those philosophical constructs makes those philosophical constructs "real"

The US government is contractually bound to recognize and respect the rights of the citizen; how can you question / deny this?

Apparently, your personal political allegiances (no doubt to some 20th century philosophical construct that has zero bearing on the foundational principles of the USA) force you to deny the existence of inherent rights . . .  But that has no real bearing on how the US government operates or what it recognizes.


----------



## The Rabbi

Abatis said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting  aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.
> 
> It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
> What are the source for these rights?
> What do they consist of?
> How do we know what they are?
> No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a governmental model is based on the existence of philosophical constructs and the government's powers are structured to recognize and respect those philosophical constructs makes those philosophical constructs "real"
> 
> The US government is contractually bound to recognize and respect the rights of the citizen; how can you question / deny this?
> 
> Apparently, your personal political allegiances (no doubt to some 20th century philosophical construct that has zero bearing on the foundational principles of the USA) force you to deny the existence of inherent rights . . .  But that has no real bearing on how the US government operates or what it recognizes.
Click to expand...


It doesnt make them real.  It makes them some kind of principle.  But the basic idea that there are some body of rights that adhere to a person just because is nonsensical.  It is unfounded and non existent.


----------



## editec

Natural rights?

Show me one that any idiot with a gun cannot take away from _YOU._


----------



## G.T.

It's better off that us humans assert these rights; however, they're not magically vested in us they are a construct of the human mind. A great one, at that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



Armed citizens retain their natural rights, unarmed citizens become slaves to a Progressive government


----------



## Luddly Neddite

CrusaderFrank said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens retain their natural rights, unarmed citizens become slaves to a Progressive government
Click to expand...


That's a nice platitude. Empty and meaningless but fits nicely on a tee potty bumper sticker.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
> What are the source for these rights?
> What do they consist of?
> How do we know what they are?
> No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That a governmental model is based on the existence of philosophical constructs and the government's powers are structured to recognize and respect those philosophical constructs makes those philosophical constructs "real"
> 
> The US government is contractually bound to recognize and respect the rights of the citizen; how can you question / deny this?
> 
> Apparently, your personal political allegiances (no doubt to some 20th century philosophical construct that has zero bearing on the foundational principles of the USA) force you to deny the existence of inherent rights . . .  But that has no real bearing on how the US government operates or what it recognizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesnt make them real.  It makes them some kind of principle.  But the basic idea that there are some body of rights that adhere to a person just because is nonsensical.  It is unfounded and non existent.
Click to expand...


That's because you're misconstruing the concept. Nothing else.


----------



## Abatis

The Rabbi said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
> What are the source for these rights?
> What do they consist of?
> How do we know what they are?
> No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That a governmental model is based on the existence of philosophical constructs and the government's powers are structured to recognize and respect those philosophical constructs makes those philosophical constructs "real"
> 
> The US government is contractually bound to recognize and respect the rights of the citizen; how can you question / deny this?
> 
> Apparently, your personal political allegiances (no doubt to some 20th century philosophical construct that has zero bearing on the foundational principles of the USA) force you to deny the existence of inherent rights . . .  But that has no real bearing on how the US government operates or what it recognizes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesnt make them real.  It makes them some kind of principle.  But the basic idea that there are some body of rights that adhere to a person just because is nonsensical.  It is unfounded and non existent.
Click to expand...


Real like what, a coin or a bar of gold to be bartered or sold / bought?  

"Rights", residing in the philosophical, in the reasoning of humans, makes them intangible, but rights, like you recognize, are a _principle_ that a government is duty bound to honor and conform all its operations to, thus, they certainly are real.



The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . _VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE_, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)



"The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. 'To secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these 'unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.' " -- _U S v. CRUIKSHANK_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)



Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. _BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK_, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. _UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO_., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)



"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized: 

'[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.'"  -- _CASEY v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD_, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992)​


"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty, . . ." --  _DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al._ No. 95-1858, (1997)



". . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it &#8220;shall not be infringed.&#8221; As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , &#8220;[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed &#8230; .&#8221; -- _DC V HELLER_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Luddly Neddite said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens retain their natural rights, unarmed citizens become slaves to a Progressive government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice platitude. Empty and meaningless but fits nicely on a tee potty bumper sticker.
Click to expand...


It's backed up by the past 4,000 years of human history. Every time, no exceptions


----------



## Crystalclear

The Rabbi said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> One natural right people have is the right to self defense.  This right exist with or without government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree with this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In Europe there is no such thing. They hold by the ancient Christian precept that killing is murder.  Thus there is no right of self defense as we understand it.
> Further, what are the parameters of that right?  In America if you know someone is plotting to hurt or kill you you cannot go and hunt that person down.  That is considered murder.  But in biblical law that is appropriate.
Click to expand...


That is one of the only things I do not like about Europe. If you kill people who take you hostage or rob you, you can just be punished as hard as the people who originally committed the crime. What the hell, stand your ground laws have to be created here in Europe. And sorry Christians, but I don't care about Biblical rules. To me is the right to defend yourself one of the most important.


----------



## The Rabbi

Abatis said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That a governmental model is based on the existence of philosophical constructs and the government's powers are structured to recognize and respect those philosophical constructs makes those philosophical constructs "real"
> 
> The US government is contractually bound to recognize and respect the rights of the citizen; how can you question / deny this?
> 
> Apparently, your personal political allegiances (no doubt to some 20th century philosophical construct that has zero bearing on the foundational principles of the USA) force you to deny the existence of inherent rights . . .  But that has no real bearing on how the US government operates or what it recognizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt make them real.  It makes them some kind of principle.  But the basic idea that there are some body of rights that adhere to a person just because is nonsensical.  It is unfounded and non existent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real like what, a coin or a bar of gold to be bartered or sold / bought?
> 
> "Rights", residing in the philosophical, in the reasoning of humans, makes them intangible, but rights, like you recognize, are a _principle_ that a government is duty bound to honor and conform all its operations to, thus, they certainly are real.
> 
> 
> 
> ]
Click to expand...

No, real is something like, oh patent laws.  I can explain what patent laws are.  I can show where they come from and what the parameters are.
I cannot do the same with "natural rights." It is fairies and unicorns.


----------



## Abatis

The Rabbi said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt make them real.  It makes them some kind of principle.  But the basic idea that there are some body of rights that adhere to a person just because is nonsensical.  It is unfounded and non existent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real like what, a coin or a bar of gold to be bartered or sold / bought?
> 
> "Rights", residing in the philosophical, in the reasoning of humans, makes them intangible, but rights, like you recognize, are a _principle_ that a government is duty bound to honor and conform all its operations to, thus, they certainly are real.
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, real is something like, oh patent laws.  I can explain what patent laws are.  I can show where they come from and what the parameters are.
> I cannot do the same with "natural rights." It is fairies and unicorns.
Click to expand...


Rights are everything We the People did not confer to government.

You don't examine the charter through which powers are granted to learn what rights have been excepted out of that contract.

You are merely noting now, (some 226 years late) one of the reasons that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was so vehemently resisted and argued against as being unnecessary, dangerous and absurd, because the rights of the citizen are impossible to quantify and list.


----------



## Wake

I don't think so. They're not self-evident in nature like apples and crickets. Should humans on Earth all cease to exist, do rights still exist? They don't exist under the scientific microscope, much like religion or concepts. They are all created and perpetuated by humans.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



That a right is infringed upon doesn't mean they aren't in natural existence. The government's role is not to secure them, they aren't in need of securing from anyone but government, who may take them away. Which is different than infringing upon them. Government's role, then, is to protect the individuals rights WHEN infringement occurs.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, no one ever had to leave England.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One natural right people have is the right to self defense. This right exist with or without government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I*f self defense is a right, so is the fear of falling. You're confusing law with the drives we're born with. Self defense is a drive, an instinct.*
Click to expand...


I realize you're about as deep as a sidewalk puddle, but what you describe lacks fundamental understanding. The difference between the right to fear of falling, and the right to self defense is in action. IN defense, one is using force to combat the initiation of force for self preservation purposes. Being afraid of falling, as a right, takes no other individual into consideration. It's not even a comparable analogy. Not shocking, of course, Duddley.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

editec said:


> Natural rights?
> 
> Show me one that any idiot with a gun cannot take away from _YOU._



Religious freedom.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., _Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence_ (1984), restricting the right to freedom of assembly.)
> 
> In the United States the Constitution codifies our rights in the context of its case law, placing limits on the extent to which government may indeed restrict our rights.
> 
> It is this balance between the rights of the individual and the authority of government, both subject to the rule of law, which safeguards our civil liberties.
> 
> The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (_McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819)), and the people clearly intended and authorized government to form a more perfect Union, through laws and measures enacted pursuant to the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> The issue, therefore, is not &#8220;[g]overnment is supposed to leave our rights alone,&#8221; rather, it&#8217;s the doctrine of judicial review which acknowledges the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court and compelling government to justify its efforts to place restrictions on citizens&#8217; civil liberties, and when the government fails to justify those restrictions, the restrictions are invalidated.
> 
> The &#8216;the proper role of government,' consequently, is whatever the people and the courts determine it to be, through the democratic process and elections, or through the process of judicial review in the courts, and often times and ideally, both.
Click to expand...


The proper role of government was determined by God from the beginning.  Once again, you can be counted on to make academic baby talk with no real understanding about the realities of human nature and the imperatives of liberty.

This government is teetering on the brink of fascism because of thugs like you.  Any human being with an IQ above that of a gnat and a respectable sense of morality can see that.  And besides, you're a liar.  Every classical liberal--conservative and libertarian--on this board knows you have absolutely no respect for the construct of inalienable rights anyway.  And certainly I have shown time and time again how you routinely and recklessly confound the distinction between _ratio decidendi_ and mere _obiter dicta_ in case law, curiously enough, in favor of increasing government power in new and startling ways that would utterly destroy the entire enterprise of the Bill of Rights . . . except for leftists.

You're especially hostile to the inalienable rights of Christians; indeed, you're quite the fanatic in that regard, always imagining that the free exercise of the Christian's religion constitutes some kind of imposition on you and your ilk.  You're quite unhinged, intellectually and morally.  You're a bootlicking statist itchin' to get your Sieg Heil! on.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., _Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence_ (1984), restricting the right to freedom of assembly.)
> 
> In the United States the Constitution codifies our rights in the context of its case law, placing limits on the extent to which government may indeed restrict our rights.
> 
> It is this balance between the rights of the individual and the authority of government, both subject to the rule of law, which safeguards our civil liberties.
> 
> The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (_McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819)), and the people clearly intended and authorized government to form a more perfect Union, through laws and measures enacted pursuant to the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> The issue, therefore, is not [g]overnment is supposed to leave our rights alone, rather, its the doctrine of judicial review which acknowledges the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court and compelling government to justify its efforts to place restrictions on citizens civil liberties, and when the government fails to justify those restrictions, the restrictions are invalidated.
> 
> The the proper role of government,' consequently, is whatever the people and the courts determine it to be, through the democratic process and elections, or through the process of judicial review in the courts, and often times and ideally, both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proper role of government was determined by God from the beginning.  Once again, you can be counted on to make academic baby talk with no real understanding about the realities of human nature and the imperatives of liberty.
> 
> This government is teetering on the brink of fascism because of thugs like you.  Any human being with an IQ above that of a gnat and a respectable sense of morality can see that.  And besides, you're a liar.  Every classical liberal--conservative and libertarian--on this board knows you have absolutely no respect for the construct of inalienable rights anyway.  And certainly I have shown time and time again how you routinely and recklessly confound the distinction between _ratio decidendi_ and mere _obiter dicta_ in case law, curiously enough, in favor of increasing government power in new and startling ways that would utterly destroy the entire enterprise of the Bill of Rights . . . except for leftists.
> 
> You're especially hostile to the inalienable rights of Christians; indeed, you're quite the fanatic in that regard, always imagining that the free exercise of the Christian's religion constitutes some kind of imposition on you and your ilk.  You're quite unhinged, intellectually and morally.  You're a bootlicking statist itchin' to get your Sieg Heil! on.
Click to expand...


And if God isn't real then................................

napkin


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., _Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence_ (1984), restricting the right to freedom of assembly.)
> 
> In the United States the Constitution codifies our rights in the context of its case law, placing limits on the extent to which government may indeed restrict our rights.
> 
> It is this balance between the rights of the individual and the authority of government, both subject to the rule of law, which safeguards our civil liberties.
> 
> The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (_McCulloch v. Maryland _(1819)), and the people clearly intended and authorized government to form a more perfect Union, through laws and measures enacted pursuant to the Constitution and its case law.
> 
> The issue, therefore, is not [g]overnment is supposed to leave our rights alone, rather, its the doctrine of judicial review which acknowledges the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court and compelling government to justify its efforts to place restrictions on citizens civil liberties, and when the government fails to justify those restrictions, the restrictions are invalidated.
> 
> The the proper role of government,' consequently, is whatever the people and the courts determine it to be, through the democratic process and elections, or through the process of judicial review in the courts, and often times and ideally, both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper role of government was determined by God from the beginning.  Once again, you can be counted on to make academic baby talk with no real understanding about the realities of human nature and the imperatives of liberty.
> 
> This government is teetering on the brink of fascism because of thugs like you.  Any human being with an IQ above that of a gnat and a respectable sense of morality can see that.  And besides, you're a liar.  Every classical liberal--conservative and libertarian--on this board knows you have absolutely no respect for the construct of inalienable rights anyway.  And certainly I have shown time and time again how you routinely and recklessly confound the distinction between _ratio decidendi_ and mere _obiter dicta_ in case law, curiously enough, in favor of increasing government power in new and startling ways that would utterly destroy the entire enterprise of the Bill of Rights . . . except for leftists.
> 
> You're especially hostile to the inalienable rights of Christians; indeed, you're quite the fanatic in that regard, always imagining that the free exercise of the Christian's religion constitutes some kind of imposition on you and your ilk.  You're quite unhinged, intellectually and morally.  You're a bootlicking statist itchin' to get your Sieg Heil! on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if God isn't real then................................
> 
> napkin
Click to expand...


Oh, but God does exist, and only fools doubt that obvious and first fact of reality................................

judgment


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proper role of government was determined by God from the beginning.  Once again, you can be counted on to make academic baby talk with no real understanding about the realities of human nature and the imperatives of liberty.
> 
> This government is teetering on the brink of fascism because of thugs like you.  Any human being with an IQ above that of a gnat and a respectable sense of morality can see that.  And besides, you're a liar.  Every classical liberal--conservative and libertarian--on this board knows you have absolutely no respect for the construct of inalienable rights anyway.  And certainly I have shown time and time again how you routinely and recklessly confound the distinction between _ratio decidendi_ and mere _obiter dicta_ in case law, curiously enough, in favor of increasing government power in new and startling ways that would utterly destroy the entire enterprise of the Bill of Rights . . . except for leftists.
> 
> You're especially hostile to the inalienable rights of Christians; indeed, you're quite the fanatic in that regard, always imagining that the free exercise of the Christian's religion constitutes some kind of imposition on you and your ilk.  You're quite unhinged, intellectually and morally.  You're a bootlicking statist itchin' to get your Sieg Heil! on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if God isn't real then................................
> 
> napkin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but God does exist, and only fools doubt that obvious and first fact of reality................................
> 
> judgment
Click to expand...


"only fools"


"judgment"


you're a real character!


----------



## The Rabbi

Abatis said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real like what, a coin or a bar of gold to be bartered or sold / bought?
> 
> "Rights", residing in the philosophical, in the reasoning of humans, makes them intangible, but rights, like you recognize, are a _principle_ that a government is duty bound to honor and conform all its operations to, thus, they certainly are real.
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> No, real is something like, oh patent laws.  I can explain what patent laws are.  I can show where they come from and what the parameters are.
> I cannot do the same with "natural rights." It is fairies and unicorns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are everything We the People did not confer to government.
> 
> You don't examine the charter through which powers are granted to learn what rights have been excepted out of that contract.
> 
> You are merely noting now, (some 226 years late) one of the reasons that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was so vehemently resisted and argued against as being unnecessary, dangerous and absurd, because the rights of the citizen are impossible to quantify and list.
Click to expand...


If they are impossible to quantify and list then they effectively do not exist.  Anyone can claim anything is a right and there is nothing to say it isn't.


----------



## Spoonman

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



with out some type of governing body eatablishing boundries, you don't have rights.  now that entity could be religion, it doesn't have to be government.   but with out sometype of defining entity you have one governing principle -  Survival of the fittest.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
> What are the source for these rights?
> What do they consist of?
> How do we know what they are?
> No one can give a credible account of these questions.  Thus they do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unprovable? Can you show me one example of a government ever giving anyone life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> What is unprovable is that such rights exist at all.
Click to expand...


Except that life, obviously, does exist. In order for anyone to prove that such a life is not inherent in an individual you will have to demonstrate that the source of that life is in the control of an entity outside that individual. That is pretty easy if you assume that God is the source of all rights, but that still puts the source outside the control of man, society, or government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without government informing us what our rights might be, or not be, the only law in effect is the law of the jungle. We're animals, and if you have something I want, I might opt to simply take it, and if you resist me you do so at your peril (purely a hypothetical.) Can't imagine many like government of any stripe telling you what you can or can't do, but they do protect us well from the alternative.
> 
> As mere animals, we don't have any 'inalienable rights.' Since without a government to write them down they simply don't exist in nature. Big fish eat little fish is what it boils down to. But no fish are backing away from an easy meal out of some observance of the little fish's right to exist and be happy (and not be eaten.) Even WITH religion that right doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Which explains why no one ever revolted against tyranny before Locke made up natural rights.











Wait....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, no one ever had to leave England.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One natural right people have is the right to self defense. This right exist with or without government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If self defense is a right, so is the fear of falling. You're confusing law with the drives we're born with. Self defense is a drive, an instinct.
Click to expand...


Self preservation isn't an instinct? Why not?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

editec said:


> Natural rights?
> 
> Show me one that any idiot with a gun cannot take away from _YOU._



Show me one he can.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> It's better off that us humans assert these rights; however, they're not magically vested in us they are a construct of the human mind. A great one, at that.



If they are nothing but a construct of the human mind why do wild animals suffer in captivity? Why do animals fight to live?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wake said:


> I don't think so. They're not self-evident in nature like apples and crickets. Should humans on Earth all cease to exist, do rights still exist? They don't exist under the scientific microscope, much like religion or concepts. They are all created and perpetuated by humans.



Are you telling me that there is absolutely no evidence of rights outside your head? How do you explain the fact that species survive better of they cooperate if there are no rights?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, real is something like, oh patent laws.  I can explain what patent laws are.  I can show where they come from and what the parameters are.
> I cannot do the same with "natural rights." It is fairies and unicorns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are everything We the People did not confer to government.
> 
> You don't examine the charter through which powers are granted to learn what rights have been excepted out of that contract.
> 
> You are merely noting now, (some 226 years late) one of the reasons that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was so vehemently resisted and argued against as being unnecessary, dangerous and absurd, because the rights of the citizen are impossible to quantify and list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are impossible to quantify and list then they effectively do not exist.  Anyone can claim anything is a right and there is nothing to say it isn't.
Click to expand...


Lots of things are not quantifiable, that is not proof they are not real. For example, science has never once quantified pain, yet no one denies it exists. 

Something else that is unquantifiable, but actually exist, is the ability to lead. No one can deny that some people are natural leaders. People have been trying to quantify that for as long as civilization has existed, but no one has ever managed to accomplish it. 

The mere fact that we cannot measure something is not a real argument against its existence.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk



Please explain what we don't get.

I was asking the question in the OP....

My question, and it certainly seems to be a point of disagreement, is.....

If I have rights, but can't exercise them (i.e. if I were living in China), then do I really have them ?  To say they are natural is only to demand that government not touch them (and I do agree with this position...the problem is that once a majority of people don't agree...it no longer matters....look at Obamacare) and to be prepared to revolt if they do.

If we say that rights come from God, then what is God doing to secure them ?

If God is relying on us to put the right government in place, then he is saying they are only in place as long as you care for them.

It does become something of a circular argument. 

My feeling is that people need to establish, for themselves, where they believe they come from and then act accordingly.

You might say that both sides converge once the air clears, but on this I disagree.  If you are a conservative, then you absolutely believe that you have to allow maximum freedoms at the proper level of government even if you don't agree with peoples choices.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unprovable? Can you show me one example of a government ever giving anyone life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> What is unprovable is that such rights exist at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that life, obviously, does exist. In order for anyone to prove that such a life is not inherent in an individual you will have to demonstrate that the source of that life is in the control of an entity outside that individual. That is pretty easy if you assume that God is the source of all rights, but that still puts the source outside the control of man, society, or government.
Click to expand...


Life certainly exists.  Life certainly is inherent in the individual.  But life itself grants no rights to anyone and people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner.
God is not the source of rights.  How could it be?  Where are those rights communicated?  How?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain what we don't get.
> 
> I was asking the question in the OP....
> 
> My question, and it certainly seems to be a point of disagreement, is.....
> 
> If I have rights, but can't exercise them (i.e. if I were living in China), then do I really have them ?  To say they are natural is only to demand that government not touch them (and I do agree with this position...the problem is that once a majority of people don't agree...it no longer matters....look at Obamacare) and to be prepared to revolt if they do.
> 
> If we say that rights come from God, then what is God doing to secure them ?
> 
> If God is relying on us to put the right government in place, then he is saying they are only in place as long as you care for them.
> 
> It does become something of a circular argument.
> 
> My feeling is that people need to establish, for themselves, where they believe they come from and then act accordingly.
> 
> You might say that both sides converge once the air clears, but on this I disagree.  If you are a conservative, then you absolutely believe that you have to allow maximum freedoms at the proper level of government even if you don't agree with peoples choices.
Click to expand...


My answer, read my signature.



> I will accept the rules that  you feel necessary to your freedom. I am  free, no matter what rules  surround me. If I find them tolerable, I  tolerate them; if I find them  too obnoxious, I break them. I am free  because I know that I alone am  morally responsible for everything I do.
> 
> When any government, or any   church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may   not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the  end  result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.   Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been   hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a   man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not   anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill   him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> What is unprovable is that such rights exist at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that life, obviously, does exist. In order for anyone to prove that such a life is not inherent in an individual you will have to demonstrate that the source of that life is in the control of an entity outside that individual. That is pretty easy if you assume that God is the source of all rights, but that still puts the source outside the control of man, society, or government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life certainly exists.  Life certainly is inherent in the individual.  But life itself grants no rights to anyone and people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner.
> God is not the source of rights.  How could it be?  Where are those rights communicated?  How?
Click to expand...


The fact that everyone dies in no way changes the fact that they live. In fact, life is part of death because, without death, we would all be screwed.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that life, obviously, does exist. In order for anyone to prove that such a life is not inherent in an individual you will have to demonstrate that the source of that life is in the control of an entity outside that individual. That is pretty easy if you assume that God is the source of all rights, but that still puts the source outside the control of man, society, or government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life certainly exists.  Life certainly is inherent in the individual.  But life itself grants no rights to anyone and people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner.
> God is not the source of rights.  How could it be?  Where are those rights communicated?  How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that everyone dies in no way changes the fact that they live. In fact, life is part of death because, without death, we would all be screwed.
Click to expand...

Seriously? That's your answer?  I'll just take that as a "I really have no idea what I mean as I never considered it before."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



*Foundation.*

Thomas Jefferson didn't originally put the notion of divinely endowed, inalienable rights forward.  The inspired authors of the Bible did, and the Anglo-American tradition of natural law as a formal philosophical construct harks back to Augustine.  It was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought and comes down to us from Augustine through the likes of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Montesquieu, Sidney and the Father of Classical Liberalism John Locke.  The canon of Burke's oratorical exegeses on this school of political thought is profound as well.

With regard to the founding ethos of our nation, in my opinion, the four most important works are (1) the Bible; (2) Montesquieu's _The Spirit of the Laws_, in which he propounds the construct of the separation of powers; (3) Sidney's _Discourses Concerning Government_, in which he deconstructs the despotism of monarchy and propounds the necessities of Judeo-Christian morality and the principles of republicanism; and (4) Locke's _Two Treatises of Civil Government_, in which he propounds, most importantly, (a) the essence of the state of nature, (b) the essence of a legitimate state of  civil government, (c) the right of revolt and (d) the inalienable rights of man.  As in the case of all of the aforementioned thinkers, Locke's ontological justification for his political theory are the sociopolitical imperatives of divine law as derived from biblical scripture.  

In fact, Jefferson's rhetorical flourish "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is merely a paraphrase of Locke's well-known triadic formula for natural law and the divinely endowed, inalienable rights thereof:  _life-liberty-private property_.  _Pursuit of happiness_ was a common term of art at the time universally understood to entail the constituents and prerogatives of private property:  one's own person, one's immediate family, one's material assets and one's aspirations.  Further, the underlying first principles of private property are the sanctity of human life and the integrity of the biological family of nature, backed by an armed citizenry, the ultimate check against criminal elements and tyrannical political factions within the land under the terms of the social contract and against invaders from without the land of the same.

Now as for those who pooh-pooh the inherent constitution of things woven into the fabric of reality, including the fact of inalienable rights and the people's moral responsibilities thereof:  make no mistake about it, societies reap what they sow.  See Edmund Burke's sociopolitical extrapolation of that biblical principal in my signature below.  All of the great thinkers mentioned in the above made the very same observation from scripture in sociopolitical terms, backed by the incontrovertible examples of historical experience, but Burke's is arguably the most eloquently succinct. 

You see the problem with those who pooh-pooh the actuality of these principles mistakenly believe that the common substance of the material realm of being trump the imperatives that are self-evident from experience and the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision, and are ultimately embedded in the Being of God Himself on Whom the material realm is contingent.  Hence, they fail to recognize the translation of these principles in terms of the tangible consequences of adhering to them or violating them in the material realm of being:  prosperity and liberty, or poverty and tyranny, respectively.

(Actually, the few conservatives on this thread who pooh-pooh the notion that there be anything tangible about these principles routinely talk about the societal problems that arise due to leftist claptrap in their refutations of the latter.  They just haven't adequately thought things through or connected the dots between the concrete reality beyond and the subordinate reality below.  Or perhaps they've been dissuaded by some pseudo-intellectual blather of pure theory, for example, *dblack's* remark:  "It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense [LOL!]. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom."

Well, at least he got the second part right.)  

God is not mocked, and He laughs at the myopic, materialistic gibberish of those who eschew that which is self-evident:  the Creator, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities; hence, the latter are inalienable and, therefore, sacrosanct in every sense of the word. 
___________________________


Now you're wondering how human rights can be inalienable if they are secured by government or can be suppressed by the same.

But as I've just shown, and, again, more graphically in my response below this one to *Delta4Embassy's* post, the essence of your query is an illusion.  

*First*, stating that the only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the rights of man is not the same thing as stating that the government is the Source and Guarantor of the rights of man.  

So that no one make the mistake of conflating these two distinct ideas, Jefferson, like Locke and Sidney before him, points out in that very same document so revered that when a government ceases to serve its only legitimate purpose:  it is the inalienable right of the people, indeed, it is their duty, to rise up in revolt and put down that government.  In other words, the people willingly surrender a certain portion of freedom, for the sake of brotherly love and for the sake of their mutual interests, in order to secure their inalienable rights against the constant threats posed by renegades in the state of nature.  

The portion of freedom that the people willingly surrender for the sake of the collective good is _not_ our inalienable rights as such, as the bootlicking statist Clayton Jones stupidly suggests.  They are inalienable.  Period.  They _are_ absolute.  Period.  They _are_ sacrosanct.  Period.  The ramifications of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms and the inalienable right to revolt are clear.  

Instead, what we give up under the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the jungle, is the freedom to directly enforce the integrity of our inalienable rights in the face of relatively light and transient transgressions.  We yield to a collective system of due process.  A peaceful resolution.  Note that I write _relatively light and transient transgressions_.  The people retain the prerogative to put down egregious transgressions by the use of deadly force if necessary, and rightly so.

Lefty routinely wets his panties over that idea.  

In other words, the people, not the state, bear the ultimate responsibility to secure their rights, as they retain the means to assert the ultimate check against criminal or governmental transgressions of the same.  The meaning of the term _secure_ in the political theory of natural law is _promote and protect_.

*Second*, in the real world, any given group of people systematically lose liberties in direct proportion to the rate at which its members throw off their individual responsibilities to provide for themselves and, consequently, to hold the government to its legitimate limits of power.  

Bootlicking statists like Clayton Jones, for example, routinely hide their desire to oppress and steal from those with whom they disagree behind some legalistic jingoism. They lack self-control.  They like being victims.  That's their justification for what they know to be in their heart of hearts a violation of other people's rights and property.  They are cowards and bullies.  They are womanish little pricks.  Oxymoron?    

Clayton Jones' favorite target of oppression are orthodox Jews and Christians; his favorite legalistic weapon is a bastardized iteration of the principle of public accommodation, whereby the former are obliged to surrender their inalienable rights of free-association and private property to accommodate the illegitimate demands of others . . . inevitably backed by government under the banner of civil rights. 

In fact, the depravity of hatred and envy are at the root of every tyranny, and every tyranny begets more and more dependency on the government. 

Now consider this:  by what means does God put down human rebellion against _His_ inalienable rights and authority?

Once again, see my signature below.

In other words, the dynamics of natural law are tangible in terms of the realities of human interaction and the outcomes thereof.  Every act of immorality or irresponsibility is another link in the chain of tyranny.   Our nation is teetering on the brink of fascism because too many prefer the security of government over the responsibilities of liberty and are willing to enslave us all to pay for it.

After all, what is government security, but the amelioration of the consequences of the immorality and sloth of some hoisted onto the backs of others in the name of social justice.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Delta4Embassy said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without government informing us what our rights might be, or not be, the only law in effect is the law of the jungle. We're animals, and if you have something I want, I might opt to simply take it, and if you resist me you do so at your peril (purely a hypothetical.) Can't imagine many like government of any stripe telling you what you can or can't do, but they do protect us well from the alternative.
> 
> As mere animals, we don't have any 'inalienable rights.' Since without a government to write them down they simply don't exist in nature. Big fish eat little fish is what it boils down to. But no fish are backing away from an easy meal out of some observance of the little fish's right to exist and be happy (and not be eaten.) Even WITH religion that right doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


You couldn't be more wrong.  Government doesn't inform us about what our rights are.  We know what our rights are by way of the self-evident realities of human interaction in the state of nature.  It's not the other way around at all.  We come from the state of nature--ontologically, epistemologically and historically!

Not convinced?

Let's get to the tangible nuts and bolts of the matter. . . .

Should I raise my hand against your life, your liberty or your property, you bloody well know that you have but four alternatives:  fight, flee, submit or die.  

Choose.  

And you bloody well know that should I prevail, though spare your life as my slave, we are still locked into a state of war, as it were, relative to the imperatives of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof; for as long as I fail to love God and obey His law and, consequently, fail to love you as my equal, we remain locked into a state of fear and oppression, alternately, one ever subject to the threat of revolt and the reversal of fortunes.  Except in the face of overwhelming initial force, what human being has ever surrendered any aspect of his liberty or his property in the absence of some form of due process or compensation?  

Speaking of which. . . .

Humans are either born/forced into a state of civil government or they willingly unite themselves to form a civil government in order to establish a semblance of mutual security.  The degree to which they retain the right of self-governance within the parameters of the respective social contract varies.

But make no mistake about it, you know very well that it's wrong to arbitrarily violate the life, the liberty or the property of another, as you would not like it one damn bit if another were to do the same to you.

Do unto thy neighbor as you would have thy neighbor do unto you.

Hence, the only legitimate, sustainable and coherently just form of government is a constitutional Republic of limited power relative to the imperatives of natural law.

Natural Law of the Anglo-American Tradition, Relative to the Inescapable Realities of Human Interaction as Ontologically Justified by the Sociopolitical Ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's Ethical System of Thought 101.
_____________________________________

What is this risible nonsense of so many of you who fail to see or pretend not to see the tangible, every-day-walk-in-the-park dynamics of inalienable rights?  At the very least they are obviously endowed in terms of the inherent exigencies of human interaction and those of self-preservation.

Dudes!  Get real.  There's nothing theoretical about natural law or natural rights.  They're self-evident.  Let me point my Smith and Wesson 9mm at your head:  you'll either be standing in a puddle of urine or drop a load in your pants . . .  or fight back if you can manage it without getting shot first.  

Got tangible substance now?

Can you smell it? 

And the conservatives among you are being especially silly, talking like leftist space cadets as if these realities were the mere protestations of human culture or the specters of human imagination.  Really?  Since when?

And for those of you who can track the implication of the following to its unmistakable conclusion at the most intellectually intimate level of apprehension, in the light of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision, concerning the imperatives of natural law:   since when did the relativist acquire the power to explain how two diametrically opposed ideas could possibly both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference?  

Anyone can say that truth is relative.  But no one who says that can heal the inherently contradictory and self-negating assertion that _there are no absolute truths, except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths_.

That is to say, the assertion that there are no absolute truths is necessarily false.

God is not mocked; He just laughs at the foolishness of the "wise."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



I get you.  I'm with you.  See my posts in the above.  But, actually, relative to the construct of natural law, the term _secure_ means _promote and protect_.  That's the only legitimate purpose of government relative to the collective good against the threats in the state of nature.

Of course the people retain the ultimate responsibility to secure their rights and retain the ultimate check against tyranny, which is what you're getting at.  Absolutely!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.  It wasn't him, of course. He was a product of his times. But it is instructive that no society ever produced the notion of "rights" as understood by the Founders until the Enlightenment.
Click to expand...


False.


----------



## The Rabbi

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.  It wasn't him, of course. He was a product of his times. But it is instructive that no society ever produced the notion of "rights" as understood by the Founders until the Enlightenment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...


Please defend your statement. Add facts as you go.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Wake said:


> I don't think so. They're not self-evident in nature like apples and crickets. Should humans on Earth all cease to exist, do rights still exist? They don't exist under the scientific microscope, much like religion or concepts. They are all created and perpetuated by humans.



More rubbish.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.  It wasn't him, of course. He was a product of his times. But it is instructive that no society ever produced the notion of "rights" as understood by the Founders until the Enlightenment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please defend your statement. Add facts as you go.
Click to expand...


I already did in the above, quite thoroughly.  The essence of the inalienable rights of man are self-evident.  More to the point, as *dblack* pointed out, they are innately inviolable, not the stuff of privileges or social constructs at all.  Hence, they are as old as humanity, obviously, and have been recognized by humanity as such under one guise or another. Hammurabic law and Mosaic law recognized the innate prerogatives of man.  

And the formal iteration of them in terms of the construct of natural law predates the Enlightenment.  It dates back to Augustine.  Further, Aristotle, in his refutation of Plato's silliness, _The Republic_, propounded the distinction between initial force and defensive force relative to the inherent "dignities" of man.  Just ask any Objectivist.  Even an Objectivist knows that much, though he understands little about anything else. 

There's nothing difficult about any of this.  Self-evident.  No man willingly lays down his life or surrenders his liberty or property, just because, to use your phrase, without resistance at some level or another--chomping at the bit to overthrow his oppressors and break his foot off in their asses.  Self-evident.  Let me sum it up.  It all comes down to one thing:  Self-preservation!  It's not rocket science.  Self-evident. 

The fact that a human being or a government _can_ violate one's life or liberty or property is utterly irrelevant.  Make no mistake about it, the moment that human being, for example, loses his grip on the instrument of his dominance, he will flee from those whom he has oppressed knowing damn well that his ass is grass, knowing damn well that he doesn't want put on him what he put on others.  Self-evident.


----------



## Sallow

No


----------



## The Rabbi

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please defend your statement. Add facts as you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did in the above, quite thoroughly.  The essence of the inalienable rights of man are self-evident.  More to the point, as *dblack* pointed out, they are innately inviolable, not the stuff of privileges or social constructs at all.  Hence, they are as old as humanity, obviously, and have been recognized by humanity as such under one guise or another. Hammurabic law and Mosaic law recognized the innate prerogatives of man.
> 
> And the formal iteration of them in terms of the construct of natural law predates the Enlightenment.  It dates back to Augustine.  Further, Aristotle, in his refutation of Plato's silliness, _The Republic_, propounded the distinction between initial force and defensive force relative to the inherent "dignities" of man.  Just ask any Objectivist.  Even an Objectivist knows that much, though he understands little about anything else.
> 
> There's nothing difficult about any of this.  Self-evident.  No man willingly lays down his life or surrenders his liberty or property, just because, to use your phrase, without resistance at some level or another--chaffing at the bit to overthrow his oppressors and break his foot off in their asses.  Self-evident.  Let me sum it up.  It all comes down to one thing:  Self-preservation!  It's not rocket science.  Self-evident.
> 
> The fact that a human being or a government _can_ violate one's life or liberty or property is utterly irrelevant.  Make no mistake about it, the moment that human being, for example, loses his grip on the instrument of his dominance, he will flee from those whom he has oppressed knowing damn well that his ass is grass, knowing damn well that he doesn't want put on him what he put on others.  Self-evident.
Click to expand...


You are babbling incoherently.  Nothing is "self evident" about this.  As I mentioned, no one can give an account for where they came from, hwo we know what they are, and what the parameters of them are.  No one has been able to answer these questions.
You have not defended your statements.  You have added no facts, except error.  The Bible does not have any "rights" in the sense we are discussing here.  The opposite.  Biblical morality consists of obligations one person has to another.  Those are not rights.
No society had rights as we understand them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life certainly exists.  Life certainly is inherent in the individual.  But life itself grants no rights to anyone and people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner.
> God is not the source of rights.  How could it be?  Where are those rights communicated?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that everyone dies in no way changes the fact that they live. In fact, life is part of death because, without death, we would all be screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously? That's your answer?  I'll just take that as a "I really have no idea what I mean as I never considered it before."
Click to expand...


I think you should take it as the fact that you aren't actually thinking things through.


----------



## Politico

Quantum Windbag said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights?
> 
> Show me one that any idiot with a gun cannot take away from _YOU._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me one he can.
Click to expand...


Breathing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Politico said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights?
> 
> Show me one that any idiot with a gun cannot take away from _YOU._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me one he can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Breathing.
Click to expand...


In other words, you got nothing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please defend your statement. Add facts as you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already did in the above, quite thoroughly.  The essence of the inalienable rights of man are self-evident.  More to the point, as *dblack* pointed out, they are innately inviolable, not the stuff of privileges or social constructs at all.  Hence, they are as old as humanity, obviously, and have been recognized by humanity as such under one guise or another. Hammurabic law and Mosaic law recognized the innate prerogatives of man.
> 
> And the formal iteration of them in terms of the construct of natural law predates the Enlightenment.  It dates back to Augustine.  Further, Aristotle, in his refutation of Plato's silliness, _The Republic_, propounded the distinction between initial force and defensive force relative to the inherent "dignities" of man.  Just ask any Objectivist.  Even an Objectivist knows that much, though he understands little about anything else.
> 
> There's nothing difficult about any of this.  Self-evident.  No man willingly lays down his life or surrenders his liberty or property, just because, to use your phrase, without resistance at some level or another--chaffing at the bit to overthrow his oppressors and break his foot off in their asses.  Self-evident.  Let me sum it up.  It all comes down to one thing:  Self-preservation!  It's not rocket science.  Self-evident.
> 
> The fact that a human being or a government _can_ violate one's life or liberty or property is utterly irrelevant.  Make no mistake about it, the moment that human being, for example, loses his grip on the instrument of his dominance, he will flee from those whom he has oppressed knowing damn well that his ass is grass, knowing damn well that he doesn't want put on him what he put on others.  Self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are babbling incoherently.  Nothing is "self evident" about this.  As I mentioned, no one can give an account for where they came from, hwo we know what they are, and what the parameters of them are.  No one has been able to answer these questions.
> You have not defended your statements.  You have added no facts, except error.  The Bible does not have any "rights" in the sense we are discussing here.  The opposite.  Biblical morality consists of obligations one person has to another.  Those are not rights.
> No society had rights as we understand them*.
Click to expand...


Everything in bold is nothing more than a litany of mindless slogans.  My foundational posts above this exchange between you and me most certainly do address and answer every last one of your absurdly obtuse allegations. 
*
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*   Where do they come from?!  Are you an atheist? 

Babbling incoherently?!  No, sir!  You just don't know your history or recognize the motifs of natural law. 

The only thing I wrote out of turn in the above is _chaffing at the bit_, when obviously I meant _chomping at the bit_.  I don't care who you are, that's funny.  Brain fart.

Look, it's late, and I don't have time tonight to address what is in fact the stuff of you babbling incoherently.  From the jump, you have uttered one silly ass, self-negating sentiment after another.  Everyone of your arguments actually prove the existence of innate rights . . . but it just flies right over your head.  

The only aspect of natural law that's theoretical goes to the science of government, i.e., the form of government that would constitute a just and stable instrument to secure (promote and protect) the innate rights of man.  This entails the precise formulations and arrangements of powers and institutions, and the Constitution isn't perfect.     

In the meantime get this straight:  THE ESSENCE OF NATURAL LAW OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TRADITION OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM _IS_ THE SOCIOPOLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY'S ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THOUGHT.  IT _IS_ THE GOLDEN RULE AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE SAME.

Hello!

Locke's _Two Treatises of Civil Government_, for example, is directly extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, replete with one biblical citation after another as the ontological justification for the entire edifice!

Further, the subsequent central themes of natural law are the very real distinctions between defensive force and initial force, between consent and imposition, bottomed on the distinction between good and evil. 

Moral conduct verses immoral conduct _is_ the essence of natural law, and the distinction between the two is the very means by which we apprehend what the innate rights of man are and what they are not.

You know damn well when someone is violating your rights, Rabbi, and you know precisely what rights of yours they are violating when they do.  
*
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX*

I've put down the foundation for natural law in the posts addressed to the OP and Delta4Embassy; the case for natural law and the inalienable rights of man is incontrovertible.  You're throwing yourself up against a brick wall.

I don't see you refuting anything in the foundational posts.  I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong about the origins and the historical development of natural law proper, and I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong to claim that the notion of innate rights is strictly a product of the Enlightenment either.  The notion goes back centuries before that, all the way back to the dawn of man.  

In fact, as for natural law proper, Augustine actually expounded his rendition of it from the adumbrations of Aristotle and the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century A.D. . 

No, sir, you are mistaken.  The political thinkers of the Enlightenment who arguably perfected the construct of natural law proper did so standing on the shoulders of the progenitors of the construct:  the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers and the Reformationists.  

What the hell do you thinking you're doing anyway?  What the hell are you trying pull here?

You've made it abundantly clear before God and everybody that you don't believe in the actuality of innate rights, and you obviously can't decipher the pertinent extrapolations from the ontological to the practical.  We can all clearly see that you haven't read the works of the historical cannon of natural law.  We can all see that you don't know dick about the matter and have never really thought anything through. 

Tomorrow I'll take your various statements and those of others and turn them against you, showing you precisely why they actually prove the existence of innate rights.  In fact, I'll show you precisely why all you naysayers do apprehend the actuality of innate rights.

You may not admit it out of pride, but make no mistake about it, every honest and astute intellect on this board will see that you are lying and have nothing but slogans for arguments.  

We classical liberals of natural law don't give a damn what leftists say, for we know they won't dignify the truth because everything they stand for means to destroy the truth and erect a collectivist tyranny.  Oh, yeah.  The elites among them know precisely what rights they're out to suppress . . . but, curiously, only insofar as they are exercised by classical liberals, not by them.  Gee.  How do they manage to pinpoint the inalienable rights that bedevil their designs when they supposedly don't know what they are because inalienable rights supposedly don't exist?

Magic!

Snap out of it, Rabbi.  Get a clue.  You know better.


----------



## Politico

Quantum Windbag said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me one he can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breathing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you got nothing.
Click to expand...


No he could do that quite easily.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's better off that us humans assert these rights; however, they're not magically vested in us they are a construct of the human mind. A great one, at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are nothing but a construct of the human mind why do wild animals suffer in captivity? Why do animals fight to live?
Click to expand...


Can't tell if serious.


----------



## editec

Lonestar_logic said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights?
> 
> Show me one that any idiot with a gun cannot take away from _YOU._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious freedom.
Click to expand...


BANG! you're dead.

You now have the unalienable right to remain silent _FOREVER._


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that everyone dies in no way changes the fact that they live. In fact, life is part of death because, without death, we would all be screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? That's your answer?  I'll just take that as a "I really have no idea what I mean as I never considered it before."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should take it as the fact that you aren't actually thinking things through.
Click to expand...


That would be your error, then.
That everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion.  I dont know why you mention an obvious fact.  My point was that simply living does not accrue rights.  The proof is that everything can be stripped from someone with no consequence.


----------



## The Rabbi

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already did in the above, quite thoroughly.  The essence of the inalienable rights of man are self-evident.  More to the point, as *dblack* pointed out, they are innately inviolable, not the stuff of privileges or social constructs at all.  Hence, they are as old as humanity, obviously, and have been recognized by humanity as such under one guise or another. Hammurabic law and Mosaic law recognized the innate prerogatives of man.
> 
> And the formal iteration of them in terms of the construct of natural law predates the Enlightenment.  It dates back to Augustine.  Further, Aristotle, in his refutation of Plato's silliness, _The Republic_, propounded the distinction between initial force and defensive force relative to the inherent "dignities" of man.  Just ask any Objectivist.  Even an Objectivist knows that much, though he understands little about anything else.
> 
> There's nothing difficult about any of this.  Self-evident.  No man willingly lays down his life or surrenders his liberty or property, just because, to use your phrase, without resistance at some level or another--chaffing at the bit to overthrow his oppressors and break his foot off in their asses.  Self-evident.  Let me sum it up.  It all comes down to one thing:  Self-preservation!  It's not rocket science.  Self-evident.
> 
> The fact that a human being or a government _can_ violate one's life or liberty or property is utterly irrelevant.  Make no mistake about it, the moment that human being, for example, loses his grip on the instrument of his dominance, he will flee from those whom he has oppressed knowing damn well that his ass is grass, knowing damn well that he doesn't want put on him what he put on others.  Self-evident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are babbling incoherently.  Nothing is "self evident" about this.  As I mentioned, no one can give an account for where they came from, hwo we know what they are, and what the parameters of them are.  No one has been able to answer these questions.
> You have not defended your statements.  You have added no facts, except error.  The Bible does not have any "rights" in the sense we are discussing here.  The opposite.  Biblical morality consists of obligations one person has to another.  Those are not rights.
> No society had rights as we understand them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything in bold is nothing more than a litany of mindless slogans.  My foundational posts above this exchange between you and me most certainly do address and answer every last one of your absurdly obtuse allegations.
> 
> You're just a closed-minded, intellectual bigot.  Where do they come from?!  Are you an atheist?
> 
> Babbling incoherently?!  No, sir!  You just don't know your history or recognize the motifs of natural law.
> 
> The only thing I wrote out of turn in the above is _chaffing at the bit_, when obviously I meant _chomping at the bit_.  I don't care who you are, that's funny.  Brain fart.
> 
> Look, it's late, and I don't have time tonight to address what is in fact the stuff of you babbling incoherently.  From the jump, you have uttered one silly ass, self-negating sentiment after another.  Everyone of your arguments actually prove the existence of innate rights . . . but it just flies right over your head.
> 
> The only aspect of natural law that's theoretical goes to the science of government, i.e., the form of government that would constitute a just and stable instrument to secure (promote and protect) the innate rights of man.  This entails the precise formulations and arrangements of powers and institutions, and the Constitution isn't perfect.
> 
> In the meantime get this straight:  THE ESSENCE OF NATURAL LAW OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TRADITION OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM _IS_ THE SOCIOPOLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY'S ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THOUGHT.  IT _IS_ THE GOLDEN RULE AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE SAME.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Locke's _Two Treatises of Civil Government_, for example, is directly extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, replete with one biblical citation after another as the ontological justification for the entire edifice!
> 
> Further, the subsequent central themes of natural law are the very real distinctions between defensive force and initial force, between consent and imposition, bottomed on the distinction between good and evil.
> 
> Moral conduct verses immoral conduct _is_ the essence of natural law, and the distinction between the two is the very means by which we apprehend what the innate rights of man are and what they are not.
> 
> You know damn well when someone is violating your rights, Rabbi, and you know precisely what rights of yours they are violating when they do.
> 
> Are you telling us you're stupid or something?
> 
> I've put down the foundation for natural law in the posts addressed to the OP and Delta4Embassy; the case for natural law and the inalienable rights of man is incontrovertible.  You're throwing yourself up against a brick wall.
> 
> I don't see you refuting anything in the foundational posts.  I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong about the origins and the historical development of natural law proper, and I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong to claim that the notion of innate rights is strictly a product of the Enlightenment either.  The notion goes back centuries before that, all the way back to the dawn of man.
> 
> In fact, as for natural law proper, Augustine actually expounded his rendition of it from the adumbrations of Aristotle and the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century A.D. .
> 
> No, sir, you are mistaken.  The political thinkers of the Enlightenment who arguably perfected the construct of natural law proper did so standing on the shoulders of the progenitors of the construct:  the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers and the Reformationists.
> 
> What the hell do you thinking you're doing anyway?  What the hell are you trying pull here?
> 
> You've made it abundantly clear before God and everybody that you don't believe in the actuality of innate rights, and you obviously can't decipher the pertinent extrapolations from the ontological to the practical.  We can all clearly see that you haven't read the works of the historical cannon of natural law.  We can all see that you don't know dick about the matter and have never really thought anything through.
> 
> Tomorrow I'll take your various statements and those of others and turn them against you, showing you precisely why they actually prove the existence of innate rights.  In fact, I'll show you precisely why all you naysayers do apprehend the actuality of innate rights.
> 
> You may not admit it out of pride, but make no mistake about it, every honest and astute intellect on this board will see that you are lying and have nothing but slogans for arguments.
> 
> We classical liberals of natural law don't give a damn what leftists say, for we know they won't dignify the truth because everything they stand for means to destroy the truth and erect a collectivist tyranny.  Oh, yeah.  The elites among them know precisely what rights they're out to suppress . . . but, curiously, only insofar as they are exercised by classical liberals, not by them.  Gee.  How do they manage to pinpoint the inalienable rights that bedevil their designs when they supposedly don't know what they are because inalienable rights supposedly don't exist?
> 
> Magic!
> 
> Snap out of it, Rabbi.  Get a clue.  You know better.
Click to expand...

I've reported your post for personal attacks and violations of the CDZ.  Good luck with that.
I am hardly a leftist.   Not even the most committed leftists here would claim I am.
You haven't produced anything but a run of verbiage, appeals to authority, terms and obfuscations.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Wake

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. They're not self-evident in nature like apples and crickets. Should humans on Earth all cease to exist, do rights still exist? They don't exist under the scientific microscope, much like religion or concepts. They are all created and perpetuated by humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that there is absolutely no evidence of rights outside your head? How do you explain the fact that species survive better of they cooperate if there are no rights?
Click to expand...


I believe so. It's much like how concepts of communism, equality, righteousness, and evil all exist in our heads. Remove humans from the equation, and concepts, beliefs, and morals all cease to exist. 

These things are all man-made hypothetical structures. Created by humans to influence humans. Take scientology, for example, which is a relatively new fabrication. It doesn't exist naturally in nature with the foxes and bumblebees without the existence of humans. Cooperation is beneficial within a species, but how they go about it is based on things not inherent in nature, like chemical anatomy.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. They're not self-evident in nature like apples and crickets. Should humans on Earth all cease to exist, do rights still exist? They don't exist under the scientific microscope, much like religion or concepts. They are all created and perpetuated by humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More rubbish.
Click to expand...


Why, please?


----------



## editec

Where do this innate "rights" come from?[

From being?

Okay I can fathom what is meant by those "innate" rights.

Basically those rights are the right (not TO but _OF) existence._

Is anyone getting where I am coming from here _BESIDES RABBI?
_

I mean if that's the inanate right one has well.... that's pretty lame and hardly "UNALIENABLE".*

*(at least on this realm of reality)


----------



## GreenBean

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

GreenBean said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
Click to expand...


Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea. 

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
Click to expand...


It's a foolish argument to claim that they exist "just cuz," and it's a foolish argument to argue they're from God or a creator when it's not within the realm of human knowledge how life was first created.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

It's actually really not. The entire premise is that other men do not give you your rights. it's that simple. You wanna invoke a religious figure? Go ahead. Nature? Fine by me. The point, though, is that you own yourself, that you are, as a cognitive creature, bestowed with certain rights. To life, etc...

This is basic shit, not really worthy of pages and pages of continued floundering over whether or not other men give you your rights. If that were the case, they wouldn't even be rights. They'd be privileges. Something you are given by superior men who ultimately control your life.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> No



Clean debate zone.

Not clean opinion zone.

When you've got something to present, by all means.

Otherwise; depart.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> It's actually really not. The entire premise is that other men do not give you your rights.



(because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)



TakeAStepBack said:


> it's that simple. You wanna invoke a religious figure? Go ahead. Nature? Fine by me. The point, though, is that you own yourself, that you are, as a cognitive creature, bestowed with certain rights. To life, etc....



(because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)



TakeAStepBack said:


> This is basic shit, not really worthy of pages and pages of continued floundering over whether or not other men give you your rights. If that were the case, they wouldn't even be rights. They'd be privileges. Something you are given by superior men who ultimately control your life.



Men invented the construct. It didn't magically appear, it had to be codified. Who codified it? A banana? A rabbit? 

Men did.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And?

So what? You're trying to say that rights are an illusion concocted by man. Are you then also in agreement that government is nothing more than an illusion construct created by man too? Because it is. There is no government in anything but concept. All you really have is a bunch of rules man made, enforced by men and ultimately challenged and changed by men.

You're arguing a silly point.


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain what we don't get
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Does it really matter? People want to be owned. I'm still coming to terms with that I guess.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> And?
> 
> So what? You're trying to say that rights are an illusion concocted by man. Are you then also in agreement that government is nothing more than an illusion construct created by man too? Because it is. There is no government in anything but concept. All you really have is a bunch of rules man made, enforced by men and ultimately challenged and changed by men.
> 
> You're arguing a silly point.



Government is not an illusion, it's a committee. It actually exists, because we invented it and so it's there. 

Once the use of Government was implemented, it rose above the level of "concept" and became "actuality." 

It was *also* created by men though, yea obviously. 

Natural Rights are only an illusion by saying "*natural*," because this cannot be proven at all with neither logic not physical evidence that they're pre existing to our sentience. Rights _*themselves*_ are not an illusion, because we invented them and so they now exist. Just like Government exists, because we invented it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

it doesn't exist on any level above saying that rights are an illusion of man. There is no "committee". You have a group of individuals. The entirety of their purpose beyond that is all a construct of man. The same as the rights. The rights exist because we're cognitive beings. We determine these things. Calling them natural rights only signifies that other men do not give you these rights. They are egalitarian. They are not something handed to you by superior men.

Your point is ridiculous, really.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> it doesn't exist on any level above saying that rights are an illusion of man. There is no "committee". You have a group of individuals.



Well gee, that's what the word committee means. 




TakeAStepBack said:


> The entirety of their purpose beyond that is all a construct of man.


 And?> So is taking a bath.



TakeAStepBack said:


> The same as the rights. The rights exist because we're cognitive beings. We determine these things. Calling them natural rights only signifies that other men do not give you these rights. They egalitarian. They are not something handed to you by superior men.


 They exist because us cognitive beings declared that they exist, not because they're naturally "there," that's the whole point. 



TakeAStepBack said:


> Your point is ridiculous, really.


 Your contrarian meaninglessness is ridiculous. *"there is no "committee" you have a group of individuals"*  ummm.....................rlly? gawly whats a committee


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
Click to expand...


Your argument seems to be "might makes right."  You do not have the right to defend yourself.  You have the ability to defend yourself.  Those are different.  As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense.  Murder is murder.
There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights.  Ergo they don't exist.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?

You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.

com·mit·tee
k&#601;&#712;mit&#275;/Submit
noun
1.
a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.



I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but.... 


Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?
> 
> You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.
> 
> com·mit·tee
> k&#601;&#712;mit&#275;/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but....
> 
> 
> Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.



Hey dude,

you said the committee doesn't exist its just a group of individuals.

then you posted the definition of committee

and its definition is that its a group of individuals

youre not helping yourself out here




It's not circular logic at all. 

Things that were created by men automatically thus being "illusions?" You're the one who invented that, I never said that. It's a pretty weird train of thought. 

I didn't say rights don't exist, or theyre illusions. 

I said men created them. 

That doesn't make them an illusion, it makes them a creation.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to be "might makes right."  You do not have the right to defend yourself.  You have the ability to defend yourself.  Those are different.  As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense.  Murder is murder.
> There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights.  Ergo they don't exist.
Click to expand...


And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point. 

Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people

1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..

2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..

It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to be "might makes right."  You do not have the right to defend yourself.  You have the ability to defend yourself.  Those are different.  As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense.  Murder is murder.
> There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights.  Ergo they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
Click to expand...


You're not really grasping what he is throwing at you. 

Men declared that rights were natural. 

The same men who you're saying don't grant rights. 


If anything, the circular logic train stops at your stop. No need for it to depart, it just ends up at the same stop - which is "men said so."


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to be "might makes right."  You do not have the right to defend yourself.  You have the ability to defend yourself.  Those are different.  As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense.  Murder is murder.
> There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights.  Ergo they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
Click to expand...

Mere assertion
Factual error
False dichotomy.
You're not doing well here.

In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.


----------



## BillyZane

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



Of course we have certain natural rights, but that doesn't mean a government has to recognize them and if the government where you are doesn't recognize them they effectively don't exist. That is what Jefferson was saying "the US government will ALWAYS recognize certain rights"


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?
> 
> You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.
> 
> com·mit·tee
> k&#601;&#712;mit&#275;/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but....
> 
> 
> Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dude,
> 
> *you said the committee doesn't exist its just a group of individuals.*
> 
> then you posted the definition of committee
> 
> and its definition is that its a group of individuals
> 
> youre not helping yourself out here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not circular logic at all.
> 
> Things that were created by men automatically thus being "illusions?" You're the one who invented that, I never said that. It's a pretty weird train of thought.
> 
> I didn't say rights don't exist, or theyre illusions.
> 
> I said men created them.
> 
> That doesn't make them an illusion, it makes them a creation.
Click to expand...


Comprehension can be difficult. A committee, if you can read, is a group of individuals *for a specific function*. THAT function, is a construct of man. This isn't complicated at all.

You've shifted the goal posts. You said that calling them natural rights is wrong because there is no physical evidence for them, or something close to that effect earlier. They are a construct of man. but is man not a part of nature?

You're argument is silly.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to be "might makes right."  You do not have the right to defend yourself.  You have the ability to defend yourself.  Those are different.  As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense.  Murder is murder.
> There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights.  Ergo they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.

Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?
> 
> You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.
> 
> com·mit·tee
> k&#601;&#712;mit&#275;/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but....
> 
> 
> Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dude,
> 
> *you said the committee doesn't exist its just a group of individuals.*
> 
> then you posted the definition of committee
> 
> and its definition is that its a group of individuals
> 
> youre not helping yourself out here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not circular logic at all.
> 
> Things that were created by men automatically thus being "illusions?" You're the one who invented that, I never said that. It's a pretty weird train of thought.
> 
> I didn't say rights don't exist, or theyre illusions.
> 
> I said men created them.
> 
> That doesn't make them an illusion, it makes them a creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comprehension can be difficult. A committee, if you can read, is a group of individuals *for a specific function*. THAT function, is a construct of man. This isn't complicated at all.
> 
> You've shifted the goal posts. You said that calling them natural rights is wrong because there is no physical evidence for them, or something close to that effect earlier. They are a construct of man. but is man not a part of nature?
> 
> You're argument is silly.
Click to expand...



It's not my fault your comprehension didn't grasp what I said. 

Never once did I imply or state that when men invent something, it doesn't really exist or it is an illusion JUST BECAUSE MEN INVENTED IT. 

I said the idea that rights are "natural" was an illusion, and it is. It cannot be proven. It is simply a declaration. 


so again, never once did I say that all things men created were thus illusions.

you invented that out of whole cloth. 

just like you invented that committees and governments are illusions.

no. theyre inventions of men, yupp. illusions? no. men created them thus they exist. 

when you call a right "natural" you are not saying that men created them, you (universal you) are saying that they were always there. 

and yea, I know men are a part of nature. how weak is that? the term "natural rights" doesn't mean "men are a part of nature and the rights were invented by man thus theyre natural rights."  you can go with that though. its still pretty funny.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> said the idea that rights are "natural" was an illusion, and it is. It cannot be proven. It is simply a declaration.


So then you believe man is not a part of nature. I get it. It's interesting, for sure. 
You've missed the point entirely and continue to ramble on with nonsensical insertions/assertions.

Man declared self ownership FROM OTHER MEN. Using this, the rights are natural to them. They aren't given, or taken. They are because you are and rights are egalitarian. They aren't given to you by other men. This concept is not difficult to grasp. Regardless of the elementary argument of "natural rights aren't natural because you can not hold them in your hand, or see them with your eye."


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> said the idea that rights are "natural" was an illusion, and it is. It cannot be proven. It is simply a declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> So then you believe man is not a part of nature. I get it. It's interesting, for sure.
> You've missed the point entirely and continue to ramble on with nonsensical insertions/assertions.
> 
> Man declared self ownership FROM OTHER MEN. Using this, the rights are natural to them. They aren't given, or taken. They are because you are and rights are egalitarian. They aren't given to you by other men. This concept is not difficult to grasp. Regardless of the elementary argument of "natural rights aren't natural because you can not hold them in your hand, or see them with your eye."
Click to expand...


No, man is definitely a part of nature. 

But the term "natural rights" doesn't mean "came from man, man is nature, thus natural rights." That is pretty pathetic to even try to posit that. 

"men declared self ownership from other men" is what you just said. 

Good, you agree with Rabbi and I then. Men declared it. It didn't simply "just exist," or "come from God," as is the view of many who argue from "natural rights."


----------



## G.T.

Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there. 

"we declare"

From my mouth, and unto you.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition? 

I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth. 

All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition?
> 
> I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth.
> 
> All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.



Umm, no it's not hair splitting ...................................those who declare that rights were endowed on us by our creator or that they pre-existed our being, in nature, are wrong.

That's what the rabbi and I have been arguing from.  

For you to, in the end, agree. 

You're a serial contrarian, you took up against your own eventual conclusion. For what, fun?

Or are you saying nobody really believes theyre from God or that they pre-exist us in nature? Cuz if you're saying that, in which case I WOULD BE hair splitting, YOU'RE WRONG. There's tons of people saying JUST those things. Maybe you should think about that.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there.
> 
> "we declare"
> 
> From my mouth, and unto you.



You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.

You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there.
> 
> "we declare"
> 
> From my mouth, and unto you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.
> 
> You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.
Click to expand...


"Natural Rights" the traditional & political term does not mean "from the natural human brain."

Keep swinging that invisible stick.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition?
> 
> I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth.
> 
> All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no it's not hair splitting ...................................*those who declare that rights were endowed on us by our creator or that they pre-existed our being, in nature, are wrong.*
> 
> That's what the rabbi and I have been arguing from.
> 
> For you to, in the end, agree.
> 
> You're a serial contrarian, you took up against your own eventual conclusion. For what, fun?
> 
> Or are you saying nobody really believes theyre from God or that they pre-exist us in nature? Cuz if you're saying that, in which case I WOULD BE hair splitting, YOU'RE WRONG. There's tons of people saying JUST those things. Maybe you should think about that.
Click to expand...


Then we do not agree. Because even for this game of hair splitter, if these are not natural rights then they are up to be challenged by other men. they aren't egalitarian. They are purely privileges granted by those who presume power. 

I'm done playing repeater with you now. Go ahead and believe that man gives you the right, and I'll go ahead on self evidence and say that rights are natural and egalitarian.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there.
> 
> "we declare"
> 
> From my mouth, and unto you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.
> 
> You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Natural Rights" the traditional & political term does not mean "from the natural human brain."
> 
> Keep swinging that invisible stick.
Click to expand...


yes it does. I suggest reading Locke.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition?
> 
> I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth.
> 
> All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no it's not hair splitting ...................................*those who declare that rights were endowed on us by our creator or that they pre-existed our being, in nature, are wrong.*
> 
> That's what the rabbi and I have been arguing from.
> 
> For you to, in the end, agree.
> 
> You're a serial contrarian, you took up against your own eventual conclusion. For what, fun?
> 
> Or are you saying nobody really believes theyre from God or that they pre-exist us in nature? Cuz if you're saying that, in which case I WOULD BE hair splitting, YOU'RE WRONG. There's tons of people saying JUST those things. Maybe you should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we do not agree. Because even for this game of hair splitter, if these are not natural rights then they are up to be challenged by other men. they aren't egalitarian. They are purely privileges granted by those who presume power.
> 
> I'm done playing repeater with you now. Go ahead and believe that man gives you the right, and I'll go ahead on self evidence and say that rights are natural and egalitarian.
Click to expand...


Ok, good for you. Your case has a million holes in it. For one - in declaring them self evident it would follow that their natural existence is explicable. 

The only way you can explain it, is by reverting back to "men said so / men declared." 

So of course, we have 1 point for SOURCE: MEN, and zero points for SOURCE: GOD / Creator


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.
> 
> You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Natural Rights" the traditional & political term does not mean "from the natural human brain."
> 
> Keep swinging that invisible stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes it does. I suggest reading Locke.
Click to expand...


No, Locke suggested God or Nature, not "man's brain." 

Try again.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.



When Locke and the founders were describing natural rights, they were not referring to "from man's brain." 

Intellectual honesty, and all that.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

&#8220;Men living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.&#8221; (Two Treatises 2.19)


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You're welcome. I'm finished here.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Men living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. (Two Treatises 2.19)



That's nice, its also meaningless. 

I'm also done here, I require intellectual honesty and a non contrarian "for the hell of it" person to converse with. 



You should read Locke on the Laws of nature, if you want to learn something. He was a very intelligent man. But for the short-sighted, by "laws of nature" he did not mean "laws of man's brain."


----------



## TakeAStepBack

OK, so Locke is meaningless but be sure to read Locke because you'll see that he doesn't mean that men living with reason (cognition) isn't a state of nature of the brain. Reason comes from the thumb and big toe.


----------



## G.T.

Reason comes from man's brain.

Natural Law is an observance of nature and it's function. Not just "man's brain." Locke based his concept of natural rights theory on natural law, not "from mans brain."

Locke is not meaningless, your quote mining of his that you found is meaningless to the discussion of *"by "natural" in the term "natural rights," did locke mean "from man's brain?"*



next.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.
> 
> Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.
Click to expand...


Wrong on all counts.
Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist. 
And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.
> 
> Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts.
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist.
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

Observing "what is" is not akin to a view of WANTING anything. It's mere observation of what is not what you wish for. It's intellectual dishonesty by definition to imply.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> Reason comes from man's brain.
> 
> Natural Law is an observance of nature and it's function. Not just "man's brain." Locke based his concept of natural rights theory on natural law, not "from mans brain."
> 
> Locke is not meaningless, your quote mining of his that you found is meaningless to the discussion of *"by "natural" in the term "natural rights," did locke mean "from man's brain?"*
> 
> 
> 
> next.



I'm not playing repeater. We've already gone over this.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.



Mice are a part of Nature.  Do rights come from mice?  Didn't think so.

Your arguments are mere assertion.  Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights.  Ergo man has rights.  Nothing about that is self evident.  Nothing about that is even remotely true.  Nature does not endow rights.  Nothnig endows rights except society.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.
> 
> Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. *If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership.* you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong on all counts.*
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  *Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist. *
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
Click to expand...


Right. So the only way that they do is by the recognition from others. You aren't into self ownership, I get it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mice are a part of Nature.  Do rights come from mice?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Your arguments are mere assertion.  Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights.  Ergo man has rights.  Nothing about that is self evident.  Nothing about that is even remotely true.  Nature does not endow rights.  Nothnig endows rights except society.
Click to expand...


Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.
> 
> Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts.
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist.
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Observing "what is" is not akin to a view of WANTING anything. It's mere observation of what is not what you wish for. It's intellectual dishonesty by definition to imply.
Click to expand...


It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.  If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
Not at all.  You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights.  That's what gives you rights to begin with.  Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I tried to get this one mouse to read Locke one time. Man was that a worthy endeavor.


----------



## G.T.

I cant believe any learned person would assert that what Locke meant by Natural Rights was "from man's brain, and man is a part of nature."

I just cannot believe this.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mice are a part of Nature.  Do rights come from mice?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Your arguments are mere assertion.  Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights.  Ergo man has rights.  Nothing about that is self evident.  Nothing about that is even remotely true.  Nature does not endow rights.  Nothnig endows rights except society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
> When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.
Click to expand...

Dolphins are cognitive beings and do form social structures.  So what?  What difference does it make to a discussion on rights?  None.  Similar to your arguments about Man and Nature.  It is irrelevant.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mice are a part of Nature.  Do rights come from mice?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Your arguments are mere assertion.  Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights.  Ergo man has rights.  Nothing about that is self evident.  Nothing about that is even remotely true.  Nature does not endow rights.  Nothnig endows rights except society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
> When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.
Click to expand...


The absurdity of him referring to mice was lost on you.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.
> 
> Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. *If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership.* you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong on all counts.*
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  *Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist. *
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. So the only way that they do is by the recognition from others. You aren't into self ownership, I get it.
Click to expand...


You dont get it.  You aren't into self ownership either.  You just think you are.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts.
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist.
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Observing "what is" is not akin to a view of WANTING anything. It's mere observation of what is not what you wish for. It's intellectual dishonesty by definition to imply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.  If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
> Not at all.  You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights.  That's what gives you rights to begin with.  *Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.*
Click to expand...


Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
Who knew!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong on all counts.*
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  *Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist. *
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. So the only way that they do is by the recognition from others. You aren't into self ownership, I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont get it.  You aren't into self ownership either.  You just think you are.
Click to expand...





Okie Dokie, fella. I'm outta here. You boys have fun!


----------



## G.T.

You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mice are a part of Nature.  Do rights come from mice?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Your arguments are mere assertion.  Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights.  Ergo man has rights.  Nothing about that is self evident.  Nothing about that is even remotely true.  Nature does not endow rights.  Nothnig endows rights except society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
> When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dolphins are cognitive beings and do form social structures.  So what?  What difference does it make to a discussion on rights?  None.  Similar to your arguments about Man and Nature.  It is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


get the dolphin to read Locke then.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.



it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.
Click to expand...


 you apparently aren't very good at following through on those decisions


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Observing "what is" is not akin to a view of WANTING anything. It's mere observation of what is not what you wish for. It's intellectual dishonesty by definition to imply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.  If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
> Not at all.  You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights.  That's what gives you rights to begin with.  *Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
> Who knew!
Click to expand...

How could natural rights be established? ZING!  You've lost this discussion right there.

Slavery posed a conundrum to the Founders on exactly that basis.  Most of them recognized it as wrong but solving the problem presented insurmountable difficulties.  And they were right.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you apparently aren't very good at following through on those decisions
Click to expand...


The British leave and never say good bye.
The Yiddish say good bye and never leave.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you apparently aren't very good at following through on those decisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British leave and never say good bye.
> The Yiddish say good bye and never leave.
Click to expand...


That's beautiful, that's poetry.

Are you a renaissance man and I've missed it all this time?


----------



## GreenBean

TakeAStepBack said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
Click to expand...


You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .  

Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !

Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are.   People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .  

That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways .  It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.  If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
> Not at all.  You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights.  That's what gives you rights to begin with.  *Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
> Who knew!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How could natural rights be established? ZING!  You've lost this discussion right there.
> 
> Slavery posed a conundrum to the Founders on exactly that basis.  Most of them recognized it as wrong but solving the problem presented insurmountable difficulties.  And they were right.
Click to expand...


They do not require establishment. You were born with them. Hence they are egalitarian. ZING! You just lost the argument right there.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

GreenBean said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .
> 
> Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !
> 
> Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are.   People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .
> 
> That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways .  It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.
Click to expand...


That presumes that this so called gang would only be after me. Which is highly improbable. People will band together when they see that this sort of action is taking place against neighbors, etc. But it does beg the question - since government is a gang that by any standard today, is nothing more than organized crime, why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? I think the answer is equally absurd. Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
> Who knew!
> 
> 
> 
> How could natural rights be established? ZING!  You've lost this discussion right there.
> 
> Slavery posed a conundrum to the Founders on exactly that basis.  Most of them recognized it as wrong but solving the problem presented insurmountable difficulties.  And they were right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do not require establishment. You were born with them. Hence they are egalitarian. ZING! You just lost the argument right there.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing with yourself? You wrote that this society had slavery before the establishment of natural riughts as the Founders believed them.  That implies they did not exist before the Founders, which eviscerates your entire argument.  So which is it?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .
> 
> Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !
> 
> Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are.   People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .
> 
> That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways .  It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That presumes that this so called gang would only be after me. Which is highly improbable. People will band together when they see that this sort of action is taking place against neighbors, etc. But it does beg the question - since government is a gang that by any standard today, is nothing more than organized crime, why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? I think the answer is equally absurd. Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote.
Click to expand...


So why do you allow it to continue?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote. That when they cast one, it actually comes into play regarding the gangs operations. it doesn't though. Which is why at this point, with that realization, we have far more apathy to the system than participation.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote. That when they cast one, it actually comes into play regarding the gangs operations. it doesn't though. Which is why at this point, with that realization, we have far more apathy to the system than participation.



what are you personally doing to stop the gubbamint from thugging you up and thefting your money via taxes and violating your natural rights..........

what have you deployed to secure your rights, besides assert them on a message board something about curb stomping someone......


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.



If natural rights are self-evident, how can they require recognition?  ZING.
Another nail in the coffin.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.

When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If natural rights are self-evident, how can they require recognition?  ZING.
> Another nail in the coffin.
Click to expand...


That's like asking how come the man ran the stop sign before he learned to read. We tend to call that sort of thing 'revelation'. It's a recognition of something overlooked previously. or only hinted upon. Pretty basic


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.
> 
> When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.



the question is not ridiculous

its pertinent and it reveals the value of the founders versus the complacency and big talk / no-do dissenters of today

in a word: balls

if I truly believed the government was excessively diminishing my freedom or way of life, I'd start by organizing and gathering enough of the willing and use my voice first and foremost as loud as humanly possible


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If natural rights are self-evident, how can they require recognition?  ZING.
> Another nail in the coffin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like asking how come the man ran the stop sign before he learned to read. We tend to call that sort of thing 'revelation'. It's a recognition of something overlooked previously. or only hinted upon. Pretty basic
Click to expand...


Well,no.  If it's self-evident, the it's self evident.  It requires no discovery.  That's what self evident means.  Clearly rights are not self evident, as no one prior to the Enlightenment believed in them.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You're falling back heavily on semantics here, of course.

The stop sign was self evident to those who could read, but the illiterate man ran the sign. Was the sign not there or was there a failure of the man to recognize, or realize the sign and it's implications?

Just because the people before enlightenment didn't recognize, or realize their natural rights, didn't mean they didn't have them.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.
> 
> When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the question is not ridiculous
> 
> its pertinent and it reveals the value of the founders versus the complacency and big talk / no-do dissenters of today
> 
> in a word: balls
> 
> if I truly believed the government was excessively diminishing my freedom or way of life, I'd start by organizing and gathering enough of the willing and use my voice first and foremost as loud as humanly possible
Click to expand...


OK....go ahead. Or don't. Completely irrelevant.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You are babbling incoherently.  Nothing is "self evident" about this.  As I mentioned, no one can give an account for where they came from, hwo we know what they are, and what the parameters of them are.  No one has been able to answer these questions.
> You have not defended your statements.  You have added no facts, except error.  The Bible does not have any "rights" in the sense we are discussing here.  The opposite.  Biblical morality consists of obligations one person has to another.  Those are not rights.
> No society had rights as we understand them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in bold is nothing more than a litany of mindless slogans.  My foundational posts above this exchange between you and me most certainly do address and answer every last one of your absurdly obtuse allegations.
> 
> You're just a closed-minded, intellectual bigot.  Where do they come from?!  Are you an atheist?
> 
> Babbling incoherently?!  No, sir!  You just don't know your history or recognize the motifs of natural law.
> 
> The only thing I wrote out of turn in the above is _chaffing at the bit_, when obviously I meant _chomping at the bit_.  I don't care who you are, that's funny.  Brain fart.
> 
> Look, it's late, and I don't have time tonight to address what is in fact the stuff of you babbling incoherently.  From the jump, you have uttered one silly ass, self-negating sentiment after another.  Everyone of your arguments actually prove the existence of innate rights . . . but it just flies right over your head.
> 
> The only aspect of natural law that's theoretical goes to the science of government, i.e., the form of government that would constitute a just and stable instrument to secure (promote and protect) the innate rights of man.  This entails the precise formulations and arrangements of powers and institutions, and the Constitution isn't perfect.
> 
> In the meantime get this straight:  THE ESSENCE OF NATURAL LAW OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TRADITION OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM _IS_ THE SOCIOPOLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY'S ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THOUGHT.  IT _IS_ THE GOLDEN RULE AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE SAME.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Locke's _Two Treatises of Civil Government_, for example, is directly extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, replete with one biblical citation after another as the ontological justification for the entire edifice!
> 
> Further, the subsequent central themes of natural law are the very real distinctions between defensive force and initial force, between consent and imposition, bottomed on the distinction between good and evil.
> 
> Moral conduct verses immoral conduct _is_ the essence of natural law, and the distinction between the two is the very means by which we apprehend what the innate rights of man are and what they are not.
> 
> You know damn well when someone is violating your rights, Rabbi, and you know precisely what rights of yours they are violating when they do.
> 
> Are you telling us you're stupid or something?
> 
> I've put down the foundation for natural law in the posts addressed to the OP and Delta4Embassy; the case for natural law and the inalienable rights of man is incontrovertible.  You're throwing yourself up against a brick wall.
> 
> I don't see you refuting anything in the foundational posts.  I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong about the origins and the historical development of natural law proper, and I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong to claim that the notion of innate rights is strictly a product of the Enlightenment either.  The notion goes back centuries before that, all the way back to the dawn of man.
> 
> In fact, as for natural law proper, Augustine actually expounded his rendition of it from the adumbrations of Aristotle and the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century A.D. .
> 
> No, sir, you are mistaken.  The political thinkers of the Enlightenment who arguably perfected the construct of natural law proper did so standing on the shoulders of the progenitors of the construct:  the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers and the Reformationists.
> 
> What the hell do you thinking you're doing anyway?  What the hell are you trying pull here?
> 
> You've made it abundantly clear before God and everybody that you don't believe in the actuality of innate rights, and you obviously can't decipher the pertinent extrapolations from the ontological to the practical.  We can all clearly see that you haven't read the works of the historical cannon of natural law.  We can all see that you don't know dick about the matter and have never really thought anything through.
> 
> Tomorrow I'll take your various statements and those of others and turn them against you, showing you precisely why they actually prove the existence of innate rights.  In fact, I'll show you precisely why all you naysayers do apprehend the actuality of innate rights.
> 
> You may not admit it out of pride, but make no mistake about it, every honest and astute intellect on this board will see that you are lying and have nothing but slogans for arguments.
> 
> We classical liberals of natural law don't give a damn what leftists say, for we know they won't dignify the truth because everything they stand for means to destroy the truth and erect a collectivist tyranny.  Oh, yeah.  The elites among them know precisely what rights they're out to suppress . . . but, curiously, only insofar as they are exercised by classical liberals, not by them.  Gee.  How do they manage to pinpoint the inalienable rights that bedevil their designs when they supposedly don't know what they are because inalienable rights supposedly don't exist?
> 
> Magic!
> 
> Snap out of it, Rabbi.  Get a clue.  You know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've reported your post for personal attacks and violations of the CDZ.  Good luck with that.
> I am hardly a leftist.   Not even the most committed leftists here would claim I am.
> You haven't produced anything but a run of verbiage, appeals to authority, terms and obfuscations.  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Really?  You open up at me with "babbling incoherently" without even bothering to read my posts above our exchange.  That's clear.  Actually, until now I didn't even realize I was in CDZ as I entered the thread via another's statistics and then via mine thereafter.  And I didn't hit you that hard, Rabbi, and you know it. 

Reading comprehension?  I didn't say you were a leftist, Rabbi.  I know you're not a leftist, Rabbi.  And you know I know that, don't you?  I subtly suggested that you are behaving, thinking and debating like a leftist, Rabbi.

You have not directly engaged one single observation of mine.  Not one!  Your standard response amounts to "babbling incoherently."  Well, given the fact that the ideas in my foundational posts were not originally asserted by me; i.e., I merely shared, no less, what the leading lights of natural law and the innate rights of man have propounded, I guess they were babbling incoherently too.  LOL!

I clearly showed that you are utterly clueless about the historical origins and the historical iterations of the construct of innate rights.  It most certainly is not the mere product of the Enlightenment as you claimed!

And the Enlightenment thinkers were _not_ the first to propound the construct of natural law proper!

You are refuted on those points.  Yes?  No?  I didn't show that?  I didn't make an argument?  Where's your counter argument?  

What a sham.  

What else are you wrong about?



> Rabbi writes:  You haven't produced anything but a run of verbiage, appeals to authority, terms and obfuscations.



No, Rabbi.  That's you all day long, arguing just like a leftist does, exposing your historical and ideological ignorance all along the way.  This is how leftists argue, Rabbi.  It's all personal.  Unsubstantiated allegations regarding the nature  of your opponent&#8217;s arguments, but no direct citation and refutation of them actually showing these things are true.  Just like leftists argue.

"Verbiage"?

No, Rabbi.  I established a baseline of actual ideas, propounded by history's masters of the topic.  No direct refutation of these, eh?  Just like leftists argue.  

"Appeals to authority"?

No, Rabbi.  That's you.  And your favorite appeals to authority throughout this thread have been:  "That's bull!" "Jefferson's full of bull!"  "Locke's full of bull!"    

Funny thing is you never tell us why everyone but you is so much full of bull, not really, in any direct refutation of the actual ideas they assert.  You distort their ideas a lot though. 

"Terms"?

LOL!  Precisely.  Terms you don't recognize because you don't know, haven't read, the historical literature on natural law.  You could ask.  But no, that would be too much like a real discussion in good faith.

"Obfuscations"?

LOL!  Akin to your evasions regarding fallacious historical claims about the constructs of innate ideas and natural law?  

*crickets chirping*


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.
> 
> When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the question is not ridiculous
> 
> its pertinent and it reveals the value of the founders versus the complacency and big talk / no-do dissenters of today
> 
> in a word: balls
> 
> if I truly believed the government was excessively diminishing my freedom or way of life, I'd start by organizing and gathering enough of the willing and use my voice first and foremost as loud as humanly possible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK....go ahead. Or don't. Completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I don't feel I'm living in tyranny. 

But I'm sure there's enough Libertarians in the Country to where if they had any balls, they'd actually stand up for what they think. 

There's the crux of being a libertarian. They think that everyone else *wants* to be a slave to the Government, yet - - - - - they're the ones who *THINK* that they're slaves to the government yet don't do anything. The others don't think they're under tyranny. The onus of "wanting to be a slave" is on the people who actually think they are, yet do nothing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Politico said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breathing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he could do that quite easily.
Click to expand...


In that case you should arrest every person who ever causes a fatal accident.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> You're falling back heavily on semantics here, of course.
> 
> The stop sign was self evident to those who could read, but the illiterate man ran the sign. Was the sign not there or was there a failure of the man to recognize, or realize the sign and it's implications?
> 
> Just because the people before enlightenment didn't recognize, or realize their natural rights, didn't mean they didn't have them.



The analogy is imperfect and irrelevant.
Self evident means just that.  The fact that no one recognized it prior to the Enlightement indicates it was not self evident at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? That's your answer?  I'll just take that as a "I really have no idea what I mean as I never considered it before."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should take it as the fact that you aren't actually thinking things through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be your error, then.
> That everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion.  I dont know why you mention an obvious fact.  My point was that simply living does not accrue rights.  The proof is that everything can be stripped from someone with no consequence.
Click to expand...


The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wake said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. They're not self-evident in nature like apples and crickets. Should humans on Earth all cease to exist, do rights still exist? They don't exist under the scientific microscope, much like religion or concepts. They are all created and perpetuated by humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that there is absolutely no evidence of rights outside your head? How do you explain the fact that species survive better of they cooperate if there are no rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe so. It's much like how concepts of communism, equality, righteousness, and evil all exist in our heads. Remove humans from the equation, and concepts, beliefs, and morals all cease to exist.
> 
> These things are all man-made hypothetical structures. Created by humans to influence humans. Take scientology, for example, which is a relatively new fabrication. It doesn't exist naturally in nature with the foxes and bumblebees without the existence of humans. Cooperation is beneficial within a species, but how they go about it is based on things not inherent in nature, like chemical anatomy.
Click to expand...


The only way I could accept that is if I ignored all the evidence that contradicted it.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> the question is not ridiculous
> 
> its pertinent and it reveals the value of the founders versus the complacency and big talk / no-do dissenters of today
> 
> in a word: balls
> 
> if I truly believed the government was excessively diminishing my freedom or way of life, I'd start by organizing and gathering enough of the willing and use my voice first and foremost as loud as humanly possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK....go ahead. Or don't. Completely irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't feel I'm living in tyranny.
> 
> But I'm sure there's enough Libertarians in the Country to where if they had any balls, they'd actually stand up for what they think.
> 
> There's the crux of being a libertarian. They think that everyone else *wants* to be a slave to the Government, yet - - - - - they're the ones who *THINK* that they're slaves to the government yet don't do anything. The others don't think they're under tyranny. The onus of "wanting to be a slave" is on the people who actually think they are, yet do nothing.
Click to expand...




Libertarianism means one adheres to the NAP. That violence is a recourse after all other options have been exhausted. The others can think what they like. And i'll act as I wish as well. That you THINK you have the authority to make judgments about how individuals, or like minded individuals react to such things is telling.

You can go ahead and do as you wish. if you feel comfortable and all happy with being a serf to the State, then that's your prerogative. I can try to change your mind, or someone else, but ultimately it's your belief. I could show you exactly how you're being subjected, but i'm certain a level of cognitive dissonance will come into play. It doesn't really matter to me what you think, how you feel or what you do. So long as you're not demanding anythign from me or infringing on my natural rights.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK....go ahead. Or don't. Completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel I'm living in tyranny.
> 
> But I'm sure there's enough Libertarians in the Country to where if they had any balls, they'd actually stand up for what they think.
> 
> There's the crux of being a libertarian. They think that everyone else *wants* to be a slave to the Government, yet - - - - - they're the ones who *THINK* that they're slaves to the government yet don't do anything. The others don't think they're under tyranny. The onus of "wanting to be a slave" is on the people who actually think they are, yet do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism means one adheres to the NAP. That violence is a recourse after all other options have been exhausted. The others can think what they like. And i'll act as I wish as well. That you THINK you have the authority to make judgments about how individuals, or like minded individuals react to such things is telling.
> 
> You can go ahead and do as you wish. if you feel comfortable and all happy with being a serf to the State, then that's your prerogative. I can try to change your mind, or someone else, but ultimately it's your belief. I could show you exactly how you're being subjected, but i'm certain a level of cognitive dissonance will come into play. It doesn't really matter to me what you think, how you feel or what you do. So long as you're not demanding anythign from me or infringing on my natural rights.
Click to expand...




no, that's you, the guy who actually THINKS we're serfs to the State and does nothing


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should take it as the fact that you aren't actually thinking things through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your error, then.
> That everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion.  I dont know why you mention an obvious fact.  My point was that simply living does not accrue rights.  The proof is that everything can be stripped from someone with no consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.
Click to expand...


Killing someone takes away their life.  That is indisputable.  And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

editec said:


> Where do this innate "rights" come from?[
> 
> From being?
> 
> Okay I can fathom what is meant by those "innate" rights.
> 
> Basically those rights are the right (not TO but _OF) existence._
> 
> Is anyone getting where I am coming from here _BESIDES RABBI?
> _
> 
> I mean if that's the inanate right one has well.... that's pretty lame and hardly "UNALIENABLE".*
> 
> *(at least on this realm of reality)



Which realm of reality do you live in? Mine includes the scientific evidence that we have free will, and that animals have a moral code. It is open to revision if you can come up with evidence that contradicts it, but reality isn't going to change simply because you do not understand how it works.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
Click to expand...


Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.

See the flaw in your argument yet?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel I'm living in tyranny.
> 
> But I'm sure there's enough Libertarians in the Country to where if they had any balls, they'd actually stand up for what they think.
> 
> There's the crux of being a libertarian. They think that everyone else *wants* to be a slave to the Government, yet - - - - - they're the ones who *THINK* that they're slaves to the government yet don't do anything. The others don't think they're under tyranny. The onus of "wanting to be a slave" is on the people who actually think they are, yet do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism means one adheres to the NAP. That violence is a recourse after all other options have been exhausted. The others can think what they like. And i'll act as I wish as well. That you THINK you have the authority to make judgments about how individuals, or like minded individuals react to such things is telling.
> 
> You can go ahead and do as you wish. if you feel comfortable and all happy with being a serf to the State, then that's your prerogative. I can try to change your mind, or someone else, but ultimately it's your belief. I could show you exactly how you're being subjected, but i'm certain a level of cognitive dissonance will come into play. It doesn't really matter to me what you think, how you feel or what you do. So long as you're not demanding anythign from me or infringing on my natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, that's you, the guy who actually THINKS we're serfs to the State and does nothing
Click to expand...


I mitigate it to the level I feel is necessary. Does nothing is your opinion. Though, this has turned into being about me, clearly because you LOST the natural rights argument.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism means one adheres to the NAP. That violence is a recourse after all other options have been exhausted. The others can think what they like. And i'll act as I wish as well. That you THINK you have the authority to make judgments about how individuals, or like minded individuals react to such things is telling.
> 
> You can go ahead and do as you wish. if you feel comfortable and all happy with being a serf to the State, then that's your prerogative. I can try to change your mind, or someone else, but ultimately it's your belief. I could show you exactly how you're being subjected, but i'm certain a level of cognitive dissonance will come into play. It doesn't really matter to me what you think, how you feel or what you do. So long as you're not demanding anythign from me or infringing on my natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, that's you, the guy who actually THINKS we're serfs to the State and does nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mitigate it to the level I feel is necessary. Does nothing is your opinion. Though, this has turned into being about me, clearly because you LOST the natural rights argument.
Click to expand...


There was no natural rights argument.

We got you to agree they came from man's mind. 

Come again!~

Oh, you didn't leave


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your error, then.
> That everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion.  I dont know why you mention an obvious fact.  My point was that simply living does not accrue rights.  The proof is that everything can be stripped from someone with no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing someone takes away their life.  That is indisputable.  And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.
Click to expand...


OK, so the Nazis were fine in their move against eh Jews. I mean, since there was a mass killing and they essentially did nothing (that's a deliberate over-simplification before you tangent on it). So those Jews had no right to life because they were killed. Can you not see how this is unraveling on you? As long as their is no punishment handed down from other humans, then those murdered had no right to live in the first place.

great argument, dude! A+


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, that's you, the guy who actually THINKS we're serfs to the State and does nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mitigate it to the level I feel is necessary. Does nothing is your opinion. Though, this has turned into being about me, clearly because you LOST the natural rights argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no natural rights argument.
> 
> We got you to agree they came from man's mind.
> 
> Come again!~
> 
> Oh, you didn't leave
Click to expand...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Language comes from man's mind too. I mean, is this repeater really necessary?


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Language comes from man's mind too. I mean, is this repeater really necessary?



That you just said that means you really don't get it. 

Language comes from man's mind, uh huh. We invented it. Just like we invented the concept of rights. 

You're pretty confused. You both think they came from man's mind, which you posited was what Locke meant by "nature," but ALSO think they were self evident 

It's pretty funny tbh


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a foolish argument to claim that they exist "just cuz," and it's a foolish argument to argue they're from God or a creator when it's not within the realm of human knowledge how life was first created.
Click to expand...


It is even more foolish to argue that, without government, everyone would die.

The fact that you cannot follow an argument to the only logical position is not proof that other people are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually really not. The entire premise is that other men do not give you your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's that simple. You wanna invoke a religious figure? Go ahead. Nature? Fine by me. The point, though, is that you own yourself, that you are, as a cognitive creature, bestowed with certain rights. To life, etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is basic shit, not really worthy of pages and pages of continued floundering over whether or not other men give you your rights. If that were the case, they wouldn't even be rights. They'd be privileges. Something you are given by superior men who ultimately control your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men invented the construct. It didn't magically appear, it had to be codified. Who codified it? A banana? A rabbit?
> 
> Men did.
Click to expand...


Men also codified mathematics, that does not mean that math is not real.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a foolish argument to claim that they exist "just cuz," and it's a foolish argument to argue they're from God or a creator when it's not within the realm of human knowledge how life was first created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is even more foolish to argue that, without government, everyone would die.
> 
> The fact that you cannot follow an argument to the only logical position is not proof that other people are wrong.
Click to expand...


I'm not a guy who said that without Government everyone would die. 

Self preservation is a natural instinct.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually really not. The entire premise is that other men do not give you your rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)
> 
> 
> 
> (because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is basic shit, not really worthy of pages and pages of continued floundering over whether or not other men give you your rights. If that were the case, they wouldn't even be rights. They'd be privileges. Something you are given by superior men who ultimately control your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men invented the construct. It didn't magically appear, it had to be codified. Who codified it? A banana? A rabbit?
> 
> Men did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men also codified mathematics, that does not mean that math is not real.
Click to expand...


Ok, and?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.
> 
> An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain what we don't get
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really matter? People want to be owned. I'm still coming to terms with that I guess.
Click to expand...


Some people want to be owned, others want to be free. The former is why we have government, the latter is why we fight to keep it small.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain what we don't get
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter? People want to be owned. I'm still coming to terms with that I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people want to be owned, others want to be free. The former is why we have government, the latter is why we fight to keep it small.
Click to expand...


That's a contradiction. 

If people wanting to be owned is "why we have government," then why would one who "wants to be free" fight to keep government small as opposed to fighting to ABOLISH Government. 

Get out of here with these canards.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to be "might makes right."  You do not have the right to defend yourself.  You have the ability to defend yourself.  Those are different.  As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense.  Murder is murder.
> There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights.  Ergo they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not really grasping what he is throwing at you.
> 
> Men declared that rights were natural.
> 
> The same men who you're saying don't grant rights.
> 
> 
> If anything, the circular logic train stops at your stop. No need for it to depart, it just ends up at the same stop - which is "men said so."
Click to expand...


You are the one missing the point, man did not declare this, they discovered it after looking around at nature.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not really grasping what he is throwing at you.
> 
> Men declared that rights were natural.
> 
> The same men who you're saying don't grant rights.
> 
> 
> If anything, the circular logic train stops at your stop. No need for it to depart, it just ends up at the same stop - which is "men said so."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one missing the point, man did not declare this, they discovered it after looking around at nature.
Click to expand...


Yea and we can wait until you're blue in the face to prove that rights are found by looking around at nature.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to be "might makes right."  You do not have the right to defend yourself.  You have the ability to defend yourself.  Those are different.  As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense.  Murder is murder.
> There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights.  Ergo they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
Click to expand...


No other culture?

Are you aware that one of the biggest problems that the government had during the Indian wars was figuring out that the fact that a chief signed a treaty did not make it binding on other members of the tribe? They had this absurd notion that everyone was an individual, and that no one could tell them what to do. The fundamental concept they lacked in their culture was the idea of a social contract, aka government, that actually bound everyone in the tribe to a certain set of rules just because they were in the tribe.

They may not have expressed the idea of natural rights the same way Locke did, but they would have agreed with him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BillyZane said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we have certain natural rights, but that doesn't mean a government has to recognize them and if the government where you are doesn't recognize them they effectively don't exist. That is what Jefferson was saying "the US government will ALWAYS recognize certain rights"
Click to expand...


The fact that the government doesn't recognize my rights does not mean they do not exist. Effectively, allit means is that the government is going to try to stop me from using them. 

For example, Turkey recently banned Twitter. You might not have noticed because, despite the ban, people in Turkey still tweeted away, totally unconcerned with the fact that they no longer could access the preferred method of expressing themselves. That is because, dpesite the delusions of statists everywhere, the government cannot actually take away rights.


----------



## oldfart

Both rights and obligations are aspects of social institutions, such as religion, law, economic structures, families, and so forth.  Sometimes more than one institution is involved in a particular behavior (legal regulation of corporate forms and religious and family mores on stealing come to mind), and there is a potential for conflict among institutions.   Did Jacob and Esau have a legally binding contract?  Did one have a moral obligation to not cheat his brother?  

It matters very little where philosophically these rights and obligations come from, they exist and are enforced.  What is enforced and how are the relevant questions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Locke and the founders were describing natural rights, they were not referring to "from man's brain."
> 
> Intellectual honesty, and all that.
Click to expand...


No, they were claiming they were inherent in all intelligent beings as part of their nature. You claim that, because you don't understand the concept, that somehow invalidates it. I am still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that you think your lack of intellectual ability means that Hawking cannot describe how information escapes from a black hole even though light doesn't, but I will let you explain that to him.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Locke and the founders were describing natural rights, they were not referring to "from man's brain."
> 
> Intellectual honesty, and all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they were claiming they were inherent in all intelligent beings as part of their nature. You claim that, because you don't understand the concept, that somehow invalidates it. I am still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that you think your lack of intellectual ability means that Hawking cannot describe how information escapes from a black hole even though light doesn't, but I will let you explain that to him.
Click to expand...


Your insults aside, you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your error, then.
> That everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion.  I dont know why you mention an obvious fact.  My point was that simply living does not accrue rights.  The proof is that everything can be stripped from someone with no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing someone takes away their life.  That is indisputable.  And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.
Click to expand...


How does it do that?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> Life certainly exists.  Life certainly is inherent in the individual.  But life itself grants no rights to anyone and people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner.
> God is not the source of rights.  How could it be?  Where are those rights communicated?  How?



Slogans, slogans everywhere.

*"But life itself grants no rights to anyone. . . ."*

What does that mean?  

*". . . people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner."*

Wait a minute.  According to you there's no inherent right to life, and God cannot be the source of rights.  

So what's all this talk about _just_ and _egregious_?  

How could it be unjust or egregious to snuff out the life of a creature that has no real inherent right to life, indeed, has no real inherent rights at all?

According to you nothing of real or absolute value is being violated.  What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a foolish argument to claim that they exist "just cuz," and it's a foolish argument to argue they're from God or a creator when it's not within the realm of human knowledge how life was first created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is even more foolish to argue that, without government, everyone would die.
> 
> The fact that you cannot follow an argument to the only logical position is not proof that other people are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a guy who said that without Government everyone would die.
> 
> Self preservation is a natural instinct.
Click to expand...


Where does that instinct come from?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even more foolish to argue that, without government, everyone would die.
> 
> The fact that you cannot follow an argument to the only logical position is not proof that other people are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a guy who said that without Government everyone would die.
> 
> Self preservation is a natural instinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does that instinct come from?
Click to expand...


Biology. 

Survival instinct makes us WANT to survive. 

WANT TO SURVIVE = / = RIGHT to survive. 

The *right* to "the pursuit of happiness" did not come from biology, only the _WANT_ to pursue happiness came from biology.


----------



## Crystalclear

Yes, more than they do now. If there's no BIG (some form of government will always be necessary) government who bans weapons, everyone can defend himself and so can't be forced to stop themselves from using their natural rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter? People want to be owned. I'm still coming to terms with that I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people want to be owned, others want to be free. The former is why we have government, the latter is why we fight to keep it small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a contradiction.
> 
> If people wanting to be owned is "why we have government," then why would one who "wants to be free" fight to keep government small as opposed to fighting to ABOLISH Government.
> 
> Get out of here with these canards.
Click to expand...


What makes you think I don't want to abolish government? As for the rest, I would suggest you read my signature.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people want to be owned, others want to be free. The former is why we have government, the latter is why we fight to keep it small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a contradiction.
> 
> If people wanting to be owned is "why we have government," then why would one who "wants to be free" fight to keep government small as opposed to fighting to ABOLISH Government.
> 
> Get out of here with these canards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I don't want to abolish government? As for the rest, I would suggest you read my signature.
Click to expand...


"we fight to keep it small"

we

keep it


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing someone takes away their life.  That is indisputable.  And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so the Nazis were fine in their move against eh Jews. I mean, since there was a mass killing and they essentially did nothing (that's a deliberate over-simplification before you tangent on it). So those Jews had no right to life because they were killed. Can you not see how this is unraveling on you? As long as their is no punishment handed down from other humans, then those murdered had no right to live in the first place.
> 
> great argument, dude! A+
Click to expand...


You are correct: The Jews in Germany had no right to life.  That is obvious, as they were killed in vast numbers with no consequences to the killers.
You have made my argument for me.  Yet again.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.
> 
> Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people
> 
> 1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..
> 
> 2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..
> 
> It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No other culture?
> 
> Are you aware that one of the biggest problems that the government had during the Indian wars was figuring out that the fact that a chief signed a treaty did not make it binding on other members of the tribe? They had this absurd notion that everyone was an individual, and that no one could tell them what to do. The fundamental concept they lacked in their culture was the idea of a social contract, aka government, that actually bound everyone in the tribe to a certain set of rules just because they were in the tribe.
> 
> They may not have expressed the idea of natural rights the same way Locke did, but they would have agreed with him.
Click to expand...

That little factoid does not imply Indians had a concept of natural rights.  The fact that Indians robbed each other, enslaved each other and slaughtered each other sort of implies the opposite.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing someone takes away their life.  That is indisputable.  And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it do that?
Click to expand...


Ipso facto.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not really grasping what he is throwing at you.
> 
> Men declared that rights were natural.
> 
> The same men who you're saying don't grant rights.
> 
> 
> If anything, the circular logic train stops at your stop. No need for it to depart, it just ends up at the same stop - which is "men said so."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one missing the point, man did not declare this, they discovered it after looking around at nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea and we can wait until you're blue in the face to prove that rights are found by looking around at nature.
Click to expand...


Why would I try to prove it? I deal with close minded people that have a hard time seeing that nature proves that evolution is true, I know better than to expect them to handle a really hard concept.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one missing the point, man did not declare this, they discovered it after looking around at nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea and we can wait until you're blue in the face to prove that rights are found by looking around at nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I try to prove it? I deal with close minded people that have a hard time seeing that nature proves that evolution is true, I know better than to expect them to handle a really hard concept.
Click to expand...


There is no proof for it, so if you're laying on your sword instead of explaining how there is then I'm good with that see ya


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a guy who said that without Government everyone would die.
> 
> Self preservation is a natural instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does that instinct come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology.
> 
> Survival instinct makes us WANT to survive.
> 
> WANT TO SURVIVE = / = RIGHT to survive.
> 
> The *right* to "the pursuit of happiness" did not come from biology, only the _WANT_ to pursue happiness came from biology.
Click to expand...


Where does the instinct to sacrifice oneself for others come from? Did biology magically equip all animals with tow different instincts? How does biology chose which one takes precedence?


----------



## The Rabbi

oldfart said:


> Both rights and obligations are aspects of social institutions, such as religion, law, economic structures, families, and so forth.  Sometimes more than one institution is involved in a particular behavior (legal regulation of corporate forms and religious and family mores on stealing come to mind), and there is a potential for conflict among institutions. *  Did Jacob and Esau have a legally binding contract?  Did one have a moral obligation to not cheat his brother?*
> 
> It matters very little where philosophically these rights and obligations come from, they exist and are enforced.  What is enforced and how are the relevant questions.



Yes, sort of.
Yes, sort of.  He also had an obligation to obey his mother.  Nor did he cheat his brother particularly.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does that instinct come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biology.
> 
> Survival instinct makes us WANT to survive.
> 
> WANT TO SURVIVE = / = RIGHT to survive.
> 
> The *right* to "the pursuit of happiness" did not come from biology, only the _WANT_ to pursue happiness came from biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the instinct to sacrifice oneself for others come from? Did biology magically equip all animals with tow different instincts? How does biology chose which one takes precedence?
Click to expand...



Hey who knows, but it doesn't come from a right n'or does its paradigm show how rights exist outside of man's creation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a contradiction.
> 
> If people wanting to be owned is "why we have government," then why would one who "wants to be free" fight to keep government small as opposed to fighting to ABOLISH Government.
> 
> Get out of here with these canards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I don't want to abolish government? As for the rest, I would suggest you read my signature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "we fight to keep it small"
> 
> we
> 
> keep it
Click to expand...


Remember when I told you to read my signature? "I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom."

I (we) recognize the fact that you need rules in order to be free. Not being an authoritarian, I see no need to force my freedom upon you, but I fight to keep your government small so you cannot force your rules on me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No other culture?
> 
> Are you aware that one of the biggest problems that the government had during the Indian wars was figuring out that the fact that a chief signed a treaty did not make it binding on other members of the tribe? They had this absurd notion that everyone was an individual, and that no one could tell them what to do. The fundamental concept they lacked in their culture was the idea of a social contract, aka government, that actually bound everyone in the tribe to a certain set of rules just because they were in the tribe.
> 
> They may not have expressed the idea of natural rights the same way Locke did, but they would have agreed with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That little factoid does not imply Indians had a concept of natural rights.  The fact that Indians robbed each other, enslaved each other and slaughtered each other sort of implies the opposite.
Click to expand...


It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I don't want to abolish government? As for the rest, I would suggest you read my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "we fight to keep it small"
> 
> we
> 
> keep it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember when I told you to read my signature? "I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom."
> 
> I (we) recognize the fact that you need rules in order to be free. Not being an authoritarian, I see no need to force my freedom upon you, but I fight to keep your government small so you cannot force your rules on me.
Click to expand...


you either fight for small government or you fight to abolish it - the rest is a defense mechanism when one has to self-dismiss one's own hypocrisy


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other culture?
> 
> Are you aware that one of the biggest problems that the government had during the Indian wars was figuring out that the fact that a chief signed a treaty did not make it binding on other members of the tribe? They had this absurd notion that everyone was an individual, and that no one could tell them what to do. The fundamental concept they lacked in their culture was the idea of a social contract, aka government, that actually bound everyone in the tribe to a certain set of rules just because they were in the tribe.
> 
> They may not have expressed the idea of natural rights the same way Locke did, but they would have agreed with him.
> 
> 
> 
> That little factoid does not imply Indians had a concept of natural rights.  The fact that Indians robbed each other, enslaved each other and slaughtered each other sort of implies the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.
Click to expand...


I never made such a claim.
Straw man fallacy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea and we can wait until you're blue in the face to prove that rights are found by looking around at nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I try to prove it? I deal with close minded people that have a hard time seeing that nature proves that evolution is true, I know better than to expect them to handle a really hard concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no proof for it, so if you're laying on your sword instead of explaining how there is then I'm good with that see ya
Click to expand...


You already pointed out that self preservation is natural, yet you also claim that there is no proof that the concept of self defense as a natural right exists only because man thought of it.

That is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "we fight to keep it small"
> 
> we
> 
> keep it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when I told you to read my signature? "I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom."
> 
> I (we) recognize the fact that you need rules in order to be free. Not being an authoritarian, I see no need to force my freedom upon you, but I fight to keep your government small so you cannot force your rules on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you either fight for small government or you fight to abolish it - the rest is a defense mechanism when one has to self-dismiss one's own hypocrisy
Click to expand...


The fact that I am willing to accept your needs in no way makes me a hypocrite.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That little factoid does not imply Indians had a concept of natural rights.  The fact that Indians robbed each other, enslaved each other and slaughtered each other sort of implies the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never made such a claim.
> Straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...


You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I try to prove it? I deal with close minded people that have a hard time seeing that nature proves that evolution is true, I know better than to expect them to handle a really hard concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof for it, so if you're laying on your sword instead of explaining how there is then I'm good with that see ya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already pointed out that self preservation is natural, yet you also claim that there is no proof that the concept of self defense as a natural right exists only because man thought of it.
> 
> That is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


The concept of self defense is natural.

*Self defense being a right* is not "proven" just because a person WANTS THIS. 

WOW, talk about cognitive dissonance. 


Naturally aspiring towards staying alive, being happy, etc. is not proof it's A RIGHT. 

There's no logical connector there, whatsoever, except that man *wanted it *to be a right.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when I told you to read my signature? "I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom."
> 
> I (we) recognize the fact that you need rules in order to be free. Not being an authoritarian, I see no need to force my freedom upon you, but I fight to keep your government small so you cannot force your rules on me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you either fight for small government or you fight to abolish it - the rest is a defense mechanism when one has to self-dismiss one's own hypocrisy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that I am willing to accept your needs in no way makes me a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Indeed it does. You don't want a Government. 

But you fight to keep it, "small."

G'job. 

I don't want a government either. 

Do I get a prize?


----------



## G.T.

Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right. 
Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never made such a claim.
> Straw man fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?
Click to expand...

Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom.  Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
> Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.



Wanting sex does not make having sex a natural right.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
> Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting sex does not make having sex a natural right.
Click to expand...



my instinct tells me that the food I smell in the office is desired by my belly

that doesn't mean its my right to go ahead and take it


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof for it, so if you're laying on your sword instead of explaining how there is then I'm good with that see ya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already pointed out that self preservation is natural, yet you also claim that there is no proof that the concept of self defense as a natural right exists only because man thought of it.
> 
> That is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of self defense is natural.
> 
> *Self defense being a right* is not "proven" just because a person WANTS THIS.
> 
> WOW, talk about cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> Naturally aspiring towards staying alive, being happy, etc. is not proof it's A RIGHT.
> 
> There's no logical connector there, whatsoever, except that man *wanted it *to be a right.
Click to expand...


Remember what I said about close minded people?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never made such a claim.
> Straw man fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom.  Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...


There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom.  Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.
Click to expand...


That's nice but not particularly relevant here.  The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom.  Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice but not particularly relevant here.  The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.
Click to expand...


No, you maintain that the fact that you believe they don't exists proves they don't exist. If you just thought they didn't exist you could admit that it is actually possible that you are wrong.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Once again:



The Rabbi said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, real is something like, oh patent laws.  I can explain what patent laws are.  I can show where they come from and what the parameters are.
> I cannot do the same with "natural rights." It is fairies and unicorns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are everything We the People did not confer to government.
> 
> You don't examine the charter through which powers are granted to learn what rights have been excepted out of that contract.
> 
> You are merely noting now, (some 226 years late) one of the reasons that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was so vehemently resisted and argued against as being unnecessary, dangerous and absurd, because the rights of the citizen are impossible to quantify and list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are impossible to quantify and list then they effectively do not exist.  Anyone can claim anything is a right and there is nothing to say it isn't.
Click to expand...


But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.  

We know what they are.  You know what they are.

They are self-evident _because_ any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues.  Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation. 

Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.  

All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."

The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man.  They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment.  It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.

They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!

*1.  The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.

2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.

3.  Freedom of religion/ideology. 

4.  Freedom of expression.

5.  Freedom of movement.*


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice but not particularly relevant here.  The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you maintain that the fact that you believe they don't exists proves they don't exist. If you just thought they didn't exist you could admit that it is actually possible that you are wrong.
Click to expand...


No.  I maintain they don't exist, offer challenges for those who do, and conclude from the unsatisfactory answers and lack of proof that I am correct and others are wrong.
If they exist it should be easy to prove.
It would be easy to explain where they came from
It would be easy to explain what they consist of.
It would be easy to explain what their parameters are.
But since no one has done any of those things in a satsifactory manner--or any manner--then I can only conclude they do not exist at all.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Actually, all of that was done. You're so fired up on being right you apparently didn't bother to read the last 200 and some posts on the matter.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Actually, all of that was done. You're so fired up on being right you apparently didn't bother to read the last 200 and some posts on the matter.



And it's the old "we've already proven this" ploy again.
No.  If someone had done that, the discussion would be done. It obviously isn't.  No one has provided any satisfactory account to date.  Saying "it's obvious", or "it's self evident" or "Jefferson said so" doesn't really amount to much.


----------



## hunarcy

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
> Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting sex does not make having sex a natural right.
Click to expand...


But, apparently wanting contraception makes it a natural right.


----------



## The Rabbi

hunarcy said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
> Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting sex does not make having sex a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, apparently wanting contraception makes it a natural right.
Click to expand...


Or an entitlement of some kind.  Yeah.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all of that was done. You're so fired up on being right you apparently didn't bother to read the last 200 and some posts on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the old "we've already proven this" ploy again.
> No.  If someone had done that, the discussion would be done. It obviously isn't.  No one has provided any satisfactory account to date.  Saying "it's obvious", or "it's self evident" or "Jefferson said so" doesn't really amount to much.
Click to expand...


I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Listening:
1. I also was shocked to read philosophies that presumed Governments naturally existed.
I remember asking how can anyone START with that assumption and expect to remain universal in scope.

2. Views of Government, role and and relations with Govt are as diverse as views of God.
So you are going to get answers from all over; please see that this is good.
If you find the central position that makes the most sense to you, it should explain all the other views within that paradigm in order to be universal for all people of all views.

3. I think it is the other way around, Government exists because there are natural laws of governance; and these systems are attempts to express and enforce those relations.

This is like asking can God exist without religions? Yes. It is the other way around, that the reason religions exist is these are means of expressing the relations between man and God's laws. 

Political laws and structures are the same way, they are based on natural laws that inherently exist by human nature and the fact we are social creatures in collective society.

4. As for how to enforce and exercise the rights and freedoms we naturally have as humans; this is all done by consent. Anywhere we respect each other's consent, we will respect each other's free will/exercise, free speech and press, right to security and peaceful assembly, association, interpretation, right to petition, due process, representation and redress of grievances, etc.

Government and laws ideally are external and collective representations of where we consent on policies and procedures.

So yes, we do need social AGREEMENTS in order to enforce these rights in public.
We at least need agreements in private to enforce and exercise our rights personally in life.

Where people do not agree is affected by whether people are equally educated, trained and experienced in knowledge of the laws, democratic process, and self-government.

Where there are class divisions in knowledge of property laws, economics and governance,
that is why we have hierarchical systems and unequal representation in government.

People do not have equal power or defense because we do not have equal knowledge or access to resources and ability to manage our local resources and communities.

Because of this, you will see splits where people see Government as an authority "outside themselves" either to be dependent upon, to fight against, etc. as people also see God differently, either as an outside authority imposed by others, or an internal authority, or a connection between internal/individual authority and external/collective authority.

Whether you study church or state law, you will see a lot of the same dichotomies, and process going on, of people trying to resolve the relationship between individual will, freedom and responsibility versus the greater good will of collective society or humanity.

If you are Christian, you may see commonality with the spirit or authority of Jesus or universal justice that ideally fulfills all laws to unify all people, though under separate laws.

All people of all groups are going through a similar process of reconciling our relationship with God or with Government to try to establish agreement based on truth and justice.

Whether you use religious laws or political/govt laws to establish this relationship,
it is still the same universal process of bringing justice to earth for all humanity.

The content of the laws are inherently existent, and we merely work out agreements in real life relationships using local laws and structures per culture, nation, party or religious tribe.



Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



if we can't resolve conflicts directly among ourselves, that is where we rely on an agreed third party authority to govern over us. technically the people are supposed to be one with government, so when this is done right, we are governing ourselves where the government represents a social contract or agreement on policy among the people. it is an expression of our will, not an imposition of a third party wielding and mandating policy onto others.

if we let conflicts divide us, then third parties can take over the role of govt and can impose on everyone else. since division and domination by political party has been the trend, that is what we see going on with govt right now. where people can't resolve conflicts, they abuse parties or govt to try to secure their rights and interests from conflicting parties and interests. so they all become dependent on govt or party to secure rights, instead of enforcing these naturally by agreement directly among people, which I believe in.

if you are Christian the same way the church is the people united embracing the law as one, the government is supposed to be the people united in embracing the law as one.
the church uses the scriptural laws in the Bible, based on divine spiritual laws universal to all humanity, while the government uses secular civil / constitutional laws that are based on natural laws which are universal for all humanity. though these laws in principle are universal and self-existent, the structures and written laws based on them are relative and depend on the people and traditions of enforcing them locally.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
> Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.



People having free will, wanting peace and freedom, and a secure balance is natural.

Whatever they feel they want or need within that nature is relative to each person.
It's still an expression of "free will" inherent in human nature.


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom.  Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice but not particularly relevant here.  The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.
Click to expand...


Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."

What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of 
free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.

What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?


----------



## Listening

Very interesting discussion.

The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.

It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.

It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.

If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye. 

If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor.  After all, they created them for you. 

And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice but not particularly relevant here.  The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you maintain that the fact that you believe they don't exists proves they don't exist. If you just thought they didn't exist you could admit that it is actually possible that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I maintain they don't exist, offer challenges for those who do, and conclude from the unsatisfactory answers and lack of proof that I am correct and others are wrong.
> If they exist it should be easy to prove.
> It would be easy to explain where they came from
> It would be easy to explain what they consist of.
> It would be easy to explain what their parameters are.
> But since no one has done any of those things in a satsifactory manner--or any manner--then I can only conclude they do not exist at all.
Click to expand...


If rights do not exist without government how do you explain the fact that they are still used even when there is no government?


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.
> 
> It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.
> 
> It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.
> 
> If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.
> 
> If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor.  After all, they created them for you.
> 
> And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?



You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will. 

The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Jefferson was full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As said, rights are a construct of society.  Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire.  The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights.  They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.
Click to expand...


*"[R]ights are a construct of society"?  You keep making this same bald claim, yet you never substantiate it.   * 

What rights are a construct of society?  If what you say is true, then you should be able to specifically identify them, so we may examine their nature and determine the validity of your claim.  Otherwise you're just appealing to some unknown authority out of turn.

*"The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights."*

False.  As I have already shown, the term _natural rights_ is merely the most historically recent iteration.  You simply don't know your history!  In the cannon of theological and philosophical thought the existence of innate human rights has been recognized for centuries:  in Hammurabic law, Mosaic law, Grecian law, Roman law, Common Law; they were identified, variously, as the dignities or the prerogatives of man in classical and medieval philosophy prior to the Enlightenment as well. 

*"They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed."*

False.  Under the Magna Carta after the English Civil War British subjects residing within Great Britain proper had direct representation while the subjects of colonial holdings did not.  On the other hand, direct representation or, for that matter, the franchise, is not a fundamental, innate right, but a necessary political/civil right relative to the imperatives of natural law under the state of civil government.

In any event, your point, whatever it is, has no bearing on the existence of innate rights as such.  The essence of your historical error is the erroneous belief that just because innate rights were not more widely protected or officially recognized by governments prior to the aftermath of the Enlightenment that humans were not cognizant of them or that a number of social contracts prior to the medieval period didn't officially recognize them to some degree or another, though typically only for those who were reckoned to be citizens of the respective social contract, such as that of the post-exilic Hebrews, a compact that most certainly did recognize the innate rights of man.  

You also fail to note that the cannon of theological and philosophical thought is replete with the recognition of innate rights prior to Augustine, as you keep blurring the semantics used to denote them after the Reformation in terms of natural law proper.  I also suspect that you may not be perfectly aware of the distinction between innate rights, civil liberties and civil rights in terms of historical political science or philosophy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.
> 
> It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.
> 
> It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.
> 
> If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.
> 
> If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor.  After all, they created them for you.
> 
> And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...


Precisely!  Folks are confounding the distinction between innates right and the civil/political/positive rights afforded by government.

Once again:



The Rabbi said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, real is something like, oh patent laws.  I can explain what patent laws are.  I can show where they come from and what the parameters are.
> I cannot do the same with "natural rights." It is fairies and unicorns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are everything We the People did not confer to government.
> 
> You don't examine the charter through which powers are granted to learn what rights have been excepted out of that contract.
> 
> You are merely noting now, (some 226 years late) one of the reasons that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was so vehemently resisted and argued against as being unnecessary, dangerous and absurd, because the rights of the citizen are impossible to quantify and list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they are impossible to quantify and list then they effectively do not exist.  Anyone can claim anything is a right and there is nothing to say it isn't.
Click to expand...


But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.  

We know what they are.  You know what they are.

They are self-evident _because_ any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues.  Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation. 

Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.  

All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."

The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man.  They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment.  It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.

They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!

*1.  The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.

2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.

3.  Freedom of religion/ideology. 

4.  Freedom of expression.

5.  Freedom of movement.*


----------



## emilynghiem

I also see people mix up rights with privileges.

The natural laws and rights represented by the Constitution are for all people universally;
but the laws and government programs under the Constitution are for US citizens.

People who do not separate church and state laws can mix together:
Spiritual rights and responsibilities, on a moral level of what we agree we should do, with Civil rights and responsibilities on an ethical level of what we agree we shouldn't do.

I've seen this go both ways: with people taking spiritual values and trying to implement them publicly through govt; or with people taking spiritual forgiveness to such an extreme, they forget that they owe restitution on a physical level of law that isn't blindly wiped out.

We as humans all have problems with imposing on each other in cases of conflicts.

In both Christian and Constitutional laws, I see principles and procedures about resolving conflicts or rebukes, and redressing grievances, to restore relations by truth and justice. 

By the time we work through that process, all these other issues come up to get resolved.
So in the end, we will establish agreement on both the spiritual and secular levels, to cover all the bases. None of us will have all the answers, but this will be delegated by groups.

That is why we have so much diversity among religious and political lines, to cover it all.
Through the internet and academic departments specializing in different fields, we have the potential to organize networks of self-governing bodies without competing for power.

So it shouldn't matter if we identify by religious, political or secular institutions; we can use all of these structures to organize resources and people around solutions and reforms. I believe this will lead to solutions to social problems to fulfill goals and laws of all groups.



dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.
> 
> It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.
> 
> It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.
> 
> If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.
> 
> If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor.  After all, they created them for you.
> 
> And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...


Dear Dblack: these both fall under free will and right of consent.

Some people WANT more freedom than security.
Some people WANT more security than freedom.

They both WANT what they WANT in the way that they WANT it set up.

I group all this together under consent, free will, 'free exercise of religion."
Whatever you believe you want, that is your free will.

And yes, people define it all kinds of ways in relationship to God or Government.
To respect all of these ways, I think we should let people choose their affiliations
and govern themselves by that grouping, whether religious or political party or what.

Don't try to dictate or change their set up, but hold each person or group responsible
for living by, enforcing and paying for their own system and keep it separate and voluntary for anyone else who may or may not agree or want to be associated or involved.

if we can map out people by major groups, then by splits in denominational differences within these groups, we could cover all people and avoid conflicts between any.

We don't all have to agree. Just recognize there is a way we could organize and support each person, group or system to reach their maximum potential of self-sustenance.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all of that was done. You're so fired up on being right you apparently didn't bother to read the last 200 and some posts on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the old "we've already proven this" ploy again.
> No.  If someone had done that, the discussion would be done. It obviously isn't.  No one has provided any satisfactory account to date.  Saying "it's obvious", or "it's self evident" or "Jefferson said so" doesn't really amount to much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.
Click to expand...

I have debunked your fallacy of the false alternatives already.  No need to do so again.
I have also debunked your claim that "oh, that's already been proven."
Either respond to the discussion of bugger off, like you promised about 5 pages ago.


----------



## The Rabbi

emilynghiem said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice but not particularly relevant here.  The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."
> 
> What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of
> free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.
> 
> What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
> are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?
Click to expand...


You are confusing rights with instincts.  I have an instinct to have sex.  I don't believe I have a right to do so.  I have an instinct to go where it's warm on a cold day.  I dont believe I have a right to do so.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you maintain that the fact that you believe they don't exists proves they don't exist. If you just thought they didn't exist you could admit that it is actually possible that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I maintain they don't exist, offer challenges for those who do, and conclude from the unsatisfactory answers and lack of proof that I am correct and others are wrong.
> If they exist it should be easy to prove.
> It would be easy to explain where they came from
> It would be easy to explain what they consist of.
> It would be easy to explain what their parameters are.
> But since no one has done any of those things in a satsifactory manner--or any manner--then I can only conclude they do not exist at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If rights do not exist without government how do you explain the fact that they are still used even when there is no government?
Click to expand...


They aren't.  It is an unproven assertion on your part.
Recall Hobbes' formulation of man's existence in a state of nature.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the old "we've already proven this" ploy again.
> No.  If someone had done that, the discussion would be done. It obviously isn't.  No one has provided any satisfactory account to date.  Saying "it's obvious", or "it's self evident" or "Jefferson said so" doesn't really amount to much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have debunked your fallacy of the false alternatives already.  No need to do so again.
> I have also debunked your claim that "oh, that's already been proven."
> Either respond to the discussion of bugger off, like you promised about 5 pages ago.
Click to expand...


You did no such thing. But claim victory if it makes you feel full.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.
> 
> It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.
> 
> It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.
> 
> If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.
> 
> If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor.  After all, they created them for you.
> 
> And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
Click to expand...


I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.

The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.

As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.  

On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.

However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice but not particularly relevant here.  The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."
> 
> What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of
> free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.
> 
> What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
> are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing rights with instincts.  I have an instinct to have sex.  I don't believe I have a right to do so.  I have an instinct to go where it's warm on a cold day.  I dont believe I have a right to do so.
Click to expand...


OK do you believe you have "natural responsibilities" by conscience?

That if you have sex, you are "naturally responsible" for the consequences?

Also, do you believe there is a natural law on "reciprocity" or equal justice.
That how you treat others, you enforce for yourself. Do you believe that is natural?


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> I have debunked your fallacy of the false alternatives already.  No need to do so again.
> I have also debunked your claim that "oh, that's already been proven."
> Either respond to the discussion of bugger off, like you promised about 5 pages ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did no such thing. But claim victory if it makes you feel full.
Click to expand...


I must have because you are still here, pages after declaring you were done with the thread.


----------



## The Rabbi

emilynghiem said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."
> 
> What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of
> free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.
> 
> What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
> are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing rights with instincts.  I have an instinct to have sex.  I don't believe I have a right to do so.  I have an instinct to go where it's warm on a cold day.  I dont believe I have a right to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK do you believe you have "natural responsibilities" by conscience?
> 
> That if you have sex, you are "naturally responsible" for the consequences?
> 
> Also, do you believe there is a natural law on "reciprocity" or equal justice.
> That how you treat others, you enforce for yourself. Do you believe that is natural?
Click to expand...


I have absolutely no idea what you are jabbering about. But it is off topic for sure.  We are discussing Natural Rights, i.e. rights that allegedly people have simply by virtue of their being human beings.


----------



## The Rabbi

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.
> 
> It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.
> 
> It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.
> 
> If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.
> 
> If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor.  After all, they created them for you.
> 
> And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.
> 
> The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.
> 
> As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.
> 
> On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.
> 
> However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.
Click to expand...


dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.


----------



## emilynghiem

hunarcy said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
> Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting sex does not make having sex a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, apparently wanting contraception makes it a natural right.
Click to expand...


From lookeing through online comments on the Hobby Lobby case,
where the conflict is coming from is "WHO is paying" for the insurance plans

People who see it as EMPLOYEES paying for these plans through federal laws
see it as THEIR FREE CHOICE to access the same drugs as required by federal laws.

They think they are paying for it as part of their labor compensation,
so it is the EMPLOYEES choice.

People who see it as the EMPLOYER paying for insurance through mandates, see it is AGAINST the company beliefs or OUTSIDE their requirement to pay to workers.

They are saying the workers should be free to pay for the plans WITHOUT
going through the companies, even indirectly.

I believe this means federal govt should not be in the business of regulating
forced terms of commerce between companies and employees, especially
where they have conflicting beliefs about health care and certain drugs.

How does this apply to natural laws?

By natural laws, nobody wants to be forced by outside authority to do things they don't agree to. Neither the employees or employers are getting their free choice because of these federal mandates trying to dictate the terms of the insurance plans between them.

If govt stayed out, the people could decide their own plans without imposing on anyone.
But going through federal govt requires the SAME plan for ALL people, and doesn't take into account that people have different beliefs and don't believe in paying for things in conflict.

so one side protests by saying the whole law is unconstitutional by unnatural imposition.
the other side faults the company and believes all people should comply with federal laws.

if they both want their way, don't agree what to pay for, but don't agree to compromise,
they should pay separately and not be forced under "one policy" by federal govt.


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK do you believe you have "natural responsibilities" by conscience?
> 
> That if you have sex, you are "naturally responsible" for the consequences?
> 
> Also, do you believe there is a natural law on "reciprocity" or equal justice.
> That how you treat others, you enforce for yourself. Do you believe that is natural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what you are jabbering about. But it is off topic for sure.  We are discussing Natural Rights, i.e. rights that allegedly people have simply by virtue of their being human beings.
Click to expand...


1. Since you don't believe in natural rights,
I am asking do you believe humans have "natural responsibilities" instead?

2. as for natural laws, do you believe there is a universal law
governing all people, often called the Golden Rule or law of "reciprocity"
where you get what you give, you reap what you sow, karma/cause and effect.
so by these laws of "natural justice" we respect others as we want to be respected,
and enforce the same principles we want enforced for us.

Do you believe we have natural responsibilities under such laws like THAT?
just by our nature as human beings.
Do you believe in any principles like that which are universal, self-existent, with or without religion or government?


----------



## The Rabbi

emilynghiem said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK do you believe you have "natural responsibilities" by conscience?
> 
> That if you have sex, you are "naturally responsible" for the consequences?
> 
> Also, do you believe there is a natural law on "reciprocity" or equal justice.
> That how you treat others, you enforce for yourself. Do you believe that is natural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what you are jabbering about. But it is off topic for sure.  We are discussing Natural Rights, i.e. rights that allegedly people have simply by virtue of their being human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Since you don't believe in natural rights,
> I am asking do you believe humans have "natural responsibilities" instead?
> 
> 2. as for natural laws, do you believe there is a universal law
> governing all people, often called the Golden Rule or law of "reciprocity"
> where you get what you give, you reap what you sow.
> 
> Do you believe we have natural responsibilities under such laws like THAT
> which are universal, self-existent, with or without religion or government?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what "natural responsibilities" are.
I have no idea what a "universal law" would be.  There are some things that tend to recur over and over such that they tend to become laws.  But that probably isn't what you mean.
Short answer: I don't have a clue what you mean. I suspect you don't either.


----------



## Dr Grump

To answer the OP: No. As Oldschool has mentioned, who decides what a natural right is?


----------



## emilynghiem

I agree with dblack and disagree with you.

There are levels of awareness, where just because you don't agree or believe something is affecting or oppressing you, it can still affect your behavior in real ways.

1. Economically and Financially
I've met many people who didn't believe they had the same rights as people running govt because they didn't believe they had equal access or ability. But once they learned they could do much of the same things, by working with teams or programs to support themselves independently, their mindset changed or started to. 

Before, they were so oppressed, they didn't even know it was a choice.
Don't tell me that doesn't affect people.

Books like "Rich Dad Poor Dad" explain it makes all the difference if people
remain in a poverty/rental mentality of never owning or having control, or if people are surrounded by others who operate on a higher level of ownership and self-government.

2. in relationships
some people who suffer abuse or bullying don't have any sense they can have friend or family who don't treat them this way. so they don't see it as a choice to change or get out.
they don't stand up for their rights to be treated with equal respect, if it's not a real choice.

3. spiritual freedom and choice to change
some people have no clue they can overcome addiction or other sickness.
they don't know there is free help out there that can change their lives.

After they do, they can look back and see they were trapped, and now they are free.
But they had no concept of that before, when they were stuck in self-destruction mode.

In psychology, there are different levels of cognition and awareness.
In studies on amnesia, even if patients didn't remember learning a task before, repeat trials showed a faster and faster learning curve on the tasks,
so the brain was still retaining the memory despite no conscious perception by the subject.

Just because we are not aware of something, or don't believe it even exists, doesn't mean it can't still affect us unconsciously on other levels.



The Rabbi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.
> 
> The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.
> 
> As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.
> 
> On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.
> 
> However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.
Click to expand...


maybe not while they are in denial. But once you break out of that situation, of course you can see where you didn't have access to choices that were treated as nonexistent.


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> I have no idea what "natural responsibilities" are.
> I have no idea what a "universal law" would be.  There are some things that tend to recur over and over such that they tend to become laws.  But that probably isn't what you mean.
> Short answer: I don't have a clue what you mean. I suspect you don't either.



1. here is a list of versions of this "Golden Rule of Reciprocity"
in major world religions
The Golden Rule: A list of two dozen versions
do any of these look like they are general wisdom or truth that applies to "all people" by our nature as human beings?

my question is do you believe there is a universal law (ie applies to ALL humanity by nature of being human) that exists independent of all these religions expressing the same law?

do you believe this law exists "on its own," as part of human nature man did not create,
or do you believe it is only in our world because of the religions made by man?

2. since you don't call it natural rights or natural responsibilities,
do you believe there are any laws that govern the human CONSCIENCE
which are not made up or caused by man, but naturally exist by how
the human conscience operates?

3. do you believe in "laws of psychology" or "social science" that are not made up by 
man, but naturally exist, and merely discovered or studied and put into words by man?


----------



## Asclepias

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



You cant secure any rights you think you should have unless there is a form of government.  You make up what rights you want and band together with like minded people to protect those rights. The only real right you have is to fight for your life. No one can take that from you but you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dr Grump said:


> To answer the OP: No. As Oldschool has mentioned, who decides what a natural right is?



People would have to figure it out, to make sure we are talking about the same principles:
Comparing what concept each person means by rights, freedoms, and laws;
and what "terms" they use since this can vary. We can believe in similar concepts,
but use different terms or systems. Whatever principles we agree are naturally occurring among all humans, we may agree to identify those with "natural rights or laws."

Most of the interactions I find online are people stumbling or bumbling around in this process -- some people more aware of it, and some not at all. but in the process of sharing and comparing, we are essentially figuring out what are universal values and what are not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I maintain they don't exist, offer challenges for those who do, and conclude from the unsatisfactory answers and lack of proof that I am correct and others are wrong.
> If they exist it should be easy to prove.
> It would be easy to explain where they came from
> It would be easy to explain what they consist of.
> It would be easy to explain what their parameters are.
> But since no one has done any of those things in a satsifactory manner--or any manner--then I can only conclude they do not exist at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rights do not exist without government how do you explain the fact that they are still used even when there is no government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  It is an unproven assertion on your part.
> Recall Hobbes' formulation of man's existence in a state of nature.
Click to expand...


When there is no government people suddenly lose the ability to live? How does that work, exactly, because all of our rights exist because, despite the claims of totalitarian governments, everyone is born without direct intervention of the government. Then we have the ability to think, from which our freedom of speech and religion come from. I have seen absolutely no evidence that would even begin to support the claim that, without government, no one can think.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> No.  I maintain they don't exist, offer challenges for those who do, and conclude from the unsatisfactory answers and lack of proof that I am correct and others are wrong.  If they exist it should be easy to prove.
> 
> [1] It would be easy to explain where they came from
> [2] It would be easy to explain what they consist of.
> [3] It would be easy to explain what their parameters are.
> 
> But since no one has done any of those things in a satsifactory manner--or any manner--then I can only conclude they do not exist at all.



Everyone of these issues has been addressed, certainly by me.  You simply refuse to directly acknowledge and engage the ontological and historical arguments that I, especially, given my obvious learning on the matter, have put forward, and I note that you ignore the deconstructions of your historical errors and logical fallacies. 

As for the matter of the existence of innate rights being self-evident, once again: 

They are self-evident _because_ any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues.  Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation and core aspirations. 

Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.  

All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."

The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man.  They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment.  It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.

They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!

*1.  The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.

2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.

3.  Freedom of religion/ideology. 

4.  Freedom of expression.

5.  Freedom of movement.*
______________________________________________

And by the way, your claim that Christianity holds that the killing of a human being by another necessarily constitutes murder is false, another fallacious claim out of nowhere, just like your irrational claim that the mutual obligations of morality are not pertinent to understanding the essence of innate rights, particularly as they are carried over from the state of nature and expressed in the state of civil government.  Obviously, the understanding of this *goes to their parameters*, number _3_ on your list!  And that is self-evident too, given the necessities of the government's regulatory and judicial authority regarding the legitimate extent of civil liberties in the face of conflicting interests.

How about you stop wasting our time with your obviously ill-considered and fallacious claims as you think to preemptively negate the manifestly essential premises of innate rights.  As for their origin and their precise parameters . . . I've covered those in other posts.  How about you for once give us a response that is as direct and definitive as this rejoinder regarding your _second_, supposedly unanswerable challenge. 

Refute that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting discussion.
> 
> The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.
> 
> It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.
> 
> It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.
> 
> If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.
> 
> If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor.  After all, they created them for you.
> 
> And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.
> 
> The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.
> 
> As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.
> 
> On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.
> 
> However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.
Click to expand...


You are confusing the pursuit of happiness with actual happiness. The pursuit of happiness is the one thing that even the most cynical person has to admit is impossible to actually take away from an individual. No matter how hard you make it to actually get to happiness, nothing can stop you from pursuing it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.
> 
> The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.
> 
> As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.
> 
> On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.
> 
> However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.
Click to expand...


No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> They aren't.  It is an unproven assertion on your part.
> Recall Hobbes' formulation of man's existence in a state of nature.



Dear Rabbi: I'm not sure you can prove that these laws exist or operate independently of govt structures, since we are submerged in society embedded with them.

I think I see what you are saying.

You are talking about PROVEN things, in order to say they exist or not.

Most people I know approach natural law principles as assumed or given, since it cannot be proven where it came from.

Since you seem to have no concept of these things,
that's why I was trying to find out what frame of reference you DO use for 
the laws or psychology of human relations.

Can I ask you more questions to figure out how you talk about human nature:

A. Do you believe in psychology as a science, universally applying to all people?

B. Do you believe all people have the same basic levels of experience
* physical/individual
* mental or psychological in relations or perceptions of others
* spiritual or collective relations as society or humanity

If not, do you have different terms you use for the levels of human experience?
how do you describe the PATTERNS or FACTORS in human nature or behavior?

these might be the closest substitute for "natural laws" or "universal laws"
affecting all human nature, behavior or relationships. What terms do you use?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> To answer the OP: No. As Oldschool has mentioned, who decides what a natural right is?



No one decides what they are any more than they decide what natural laws are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant secure any rights you think you should have unless there is a form of government.  You make up what rights you want and band together with like minded people to protect those rights. The only real right you have is to fight for your life. No one can take that from you but you.
Click to expand...


Speak for yourself, I can secure my rights without the government. I do not need the government to tell when to think.


----------



## Dr Grump

emilynghiem said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the OP: No. As Oldschool has mentioned, who decides what a natural right is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People would have to figure it out, to make sure we are talking about the same principles:
> Comparing what concept each person means by rights, freedoms, and laws;
> and what "terms" they use since this can vary. We can believe in similar concepts,
> but use different terms or systems. Whatever principles we agree are naturally occurring among all humans, we may agree to identify those with "natural rights or laws."
> 
> Most of the interactions I find online are people stumbling or bumbling around in this process -- some people more aware of it, and some not at all. but in the process of sharing and comparing, we are essentially figuring out what are universal values and what are not.
Click to expand...


My main sticking point in this debate though, is not about whether they exist outside of govt, it's whether they exist at all. I say, no.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I maintain they don't exist, offer challenges for those who do, and conclude from the unsatisfactory answers and lack of proof that I am correct and others are wrong.
> If they exist it should be easy to prove.
> It would be easy to explain where they came from
> It would be easy to explain what they consist of.
> It would be easy to explain what their parameters are.
> But since no one has done any of those things in a satsifactory manner--or any manner--then I can only conclude they do not exist at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rights do not exist without government how do you explain the fact that they are still used even when there is no government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  It is an unproven assertion on your part.
> Recall Hobbes' formulation of man's existence in a state of nature.
Click to expand...


But unlike Locke and scripture, by the way, Hobbes never provides an ontologically sound reason for why the life of man in the state of nature "is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.
> 
> The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.
> 
> As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.
> 
> On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.
> 
> However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.
Click to expand...


Essentially.  But Rabbi's allusion to Hobbes tells me that what he fails to see--and believe me, no one in their right mind would want to be under the political sway of Hobbes' Leviathan--is the deadly mayhem of self-preservation seething just under the seemingly tranquil surface of the oppressed's demeanor toward his self-anointed master.


----------



## beagle9

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Foundation.*
> 
> Thomas Jefferson didn't originally put the notion of divinely endowed, inalienable rights forward.  The inspired authors of the Bible did, and the Anglo-American tradition of natural law as a formal philosophical construct harks back to Augustine.  It was extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought and comes down to us from Augustine through the likes of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Montesquieu, Sidney and the Father of Classical Liberalism John Locke.  The canon of Burke's oratorical exegeses on this school of political thought is profound as well.
> 
> With regard to the founding ethos of our nation, in my opinion, the four most important works are (1) the Bible; (2) Montesquieu's _The Spirit of the Laws_, in which he propounds the construct of the separation of powers; (3) Sidney's _Discourses Concerning Government_, in which he deconstructs the despotism of monarchy and propounds the necessities of Judeo-Christian morality and the principles of republicanism; and (4) Locke's _Two Treatises of Civil Government_, in which he propounds, most importantly, (a) the essence of the state of nature, (b) the essence of a legitimate state of  civil government, (c) the right of revolt and (d) the inalienable rights of man.  As in the case of all of the aforementioned thinkers, Locke's ontological justification for his political theory are the sociopolitical imperatives of divine law as derived from biblical scripture.
> 
> In fact, Jefferson's rhetorical flourish "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is merely a paraphrase of Locke's well-known triadic formula for natural law and the divinely endowed, inalienable rights thereof:  _life-liberty-private property_.  _Pursuit of happiness_ was a common term of art at the time universally understood to entail the constituents and prerogatives of private property:  one's own person, one's immediate family, one's material assets and one's aspirations.  Further, the underlying first principles of private property are the sanctity of human life and the integrity of the biological family of nature, backed by an armed citizenry, the ultimate check against criminal elements and tyrannical political factions within the land under the terms of the social contract and against invaders from without the land of the same.
> 
> Now as for those who pooh-pooh the inherent constitution of things woven into the fabric of reality, including the fact of inalienable rights and the people's moral responsibilities thereof:  make no mistake about it, societies reap what they sow.  See Edmund Burke's sociopolitical extrapolation of that biblical principal in my signature below.  All of the great thinkers mentioned in the above made the very same observation from scripture in sociopolitical terms, backed by the incontrovertible examples of historical experience, but Burke's is arguably the most eloquently succinct.
> 
> You see the problem with those who pooh-pooh the actuality of these principles mistakenly believe that the common substance of the material realm of being trump the imperatives that are self-evident from experience and the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision, and are ultimately embedded in the Being of God Himself on Whom the material realm is contingent.  Hence, they fail to recognize the translation of these principles in terms of the tangible consequences of adhering to them or violating them in the material realm of being:  prosperity and liberty, or poverty and tyranny, respectively.
> 
> (Actually, the few conservatives on this thread who pooh-pooh the notion that there be anything tangible about these principles routinely talk about the societal problems that arise due to leftist claptrap in their refutations of the latter.  They just haven't adequately thought things through or connected the dots between the concrete reality beyond and the subordinate reality below.  Or perhaps they've been dissuaded by some pseudo-intellectual blather of pure theory, for example, *dblack's* remark:  "It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense [LOL!]. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom."
> 
> Well, at least he got the second part right.)
> 
> God is not mocked, and He laughs at the myopic, materialistic gibberish of those who eschew that which is self-evident:  the Creator, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities; hence, the latter are inalienable and, therefore, sacrosanct in every sense of the word.
> ___________________________
> 
> 
> Now you're wondering how human rights can be inalienable if they are secured by government or can be suppressed by the same.
> 
> But as I've just shown, and, again, more graphically in my response below this one to *Delta4Embassy's* post, the essence of your query is an illusion.
> 
> *First*, stating that the only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the rights of man is not the same thing as stating that the government is the Source and Guarantor of the rights of man.
> 
> So that no one make the mistake of conflating these two distinct ideas, Jefferson, like Locke and Sidney before him, points out in that very same document so revered that when a government ceases to serve its only legitimate purpose:  it is the inalienable right of the people, indeed, it is their duty, to rise up in revolt and put down that government.  In other words, the people willingly surrender a certain portion of freedom, for the sake of brotherly love and for the sake of their mutual interests, in order to secure their inalienable rights against the constant threats posed by renegades in the state of nature.
> 
> The portion of freedom that the people willingly surrender for the sake of the collective good is _not_ our inalienable rights as such, as the bootlicking statist Clayton Jones stupidly suggests.  They are inalienable.  Period.  They _are_ absolute.  Period.  They _are_ sacrosanct.  Period.  The ramifications of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms and the inalienable right to revolt are clear.
> 
> Instead, what we give up under the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the jungle, is the freedom to directly enforce the integrity of our inalienable rights in the face of relatively light and transient transgressions.  We yield to a collective system of due process.  A peaceful resolution.  Note that I write _relatively light and transient transgressions_.  The people retain the prerogative to put down egregious transgressions by the use of deadly force if necessary, and rightly so.
> 
> Lefty routinely wets his panties over that idea.
> 
> In other words, the people, not the state, bear the ultimate responsibility to secure their rights, as they retain the means to assert the ultimate check against criminal or governmental transgressions of the same.  The meaning of the term _secure_ in the political theory of natural law is _promote and protect_.
> 
> *Second*, in the real world, any given group of people systematically lose liberties in direct proportion to the rate at which its members throw off their individual responsibilities to provide for themselves and, consequently, to hold the government to its legitimate limits of power.
> 
> Bootlicking statists like Clayton Jones, for example, routinely hide their desire to oppress and steal from those with whom they disagree behind some legalistic jingoism. They lack self-control.  They like being victims.  That's their justification for what they know to be in their heart of hearts a violation of other people's rights and property.  They are cowards and bullies.  They are womanish little pricks.  Oxymoron?
> 
> Clayton Jones' favorite target of oppression are orthodox Jews and Christians; his favorite legalistic weapon is a bastardized iteration of the principle of public accommodation, whereby the former are obliged to surrender their inalienable rights of free-association and private property to accommodate the illegitimate demands of others . . . inevitably backed by government under the banner of civil rights.
> 
> In fact, the depravity of hatred and envy are at the root of every tyranny, and every tyranny begets more and more dependency on the government.
> 
> Now consider this:  by what means does God put down human rebellion against _His_ inalienable rights and authority?
> 
> Once again, see my signature below.
> 
> In other words, the dynamics of natural law are tangible in terms of the realities of human interaction and the outcomes thereof.  Every act of immorality or irresponsibility is another link in the chain of tyranny.   Our nation is teetering on the brink of fascism because too many prefer the security of government over the responsibilities of liberty and are willing to enslave us all to pay for it.
> 
> After all, what is government security, but the amelioration of the consequences of the immorality and sloth of some hoisted onto the backs of others in the name of social justice.
Click to expand...

Governments limitations are to secure our rights only as we so choose for it to do so, and therefore it is not intended to go beyond that point, but it can't help itself to now be empowered in a great way, and this because we empowered it to do a job for us, and therefore it now takes advantage of that empowerment way and far beyond what we expected out of it or demanded of it to do for us. It has become sick with power, and now may God have mercy upon us all.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rights do not exist without government how do you explain the fact that they are still used even when there is no government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't.  It is an unproven assertion on your part.
> Recall Hobbes' formulation of man's existence in a state of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there is no government people suddenly lose the ability to live? How does that work, exactly, because all of our rights exist because, despite the claims of totalitarian governments, everyone is born without direct intervention of the government. Then we have the ability to think, from which our freedom of speech and religion come from. I have seen absolutely no evidence that would even begin to support the claim that, without government, no one can think.
Click to expand...


You seem to have trouble separating your ideas from other people's.  Why I don't know.  Who suggested in the absence of gov't people couldn't live?
An ability to think does not imply any kind of right to think, much less speak or practice religion.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.
> 
> The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.
> 
> As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.
> 
> On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.
> 
> However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.
Click to expand...


What do you see infringing as?  What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?


----------



## GreenBean

TakeAStepBack said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a gang.
> 
> 
> 
> Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.
> 
> Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.
> 
> Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .
> 
> Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !
> 
> Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are.   People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .
> 
> That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways .  It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That presumes that this so called gang would only be after me. Which is highly improbable. People will band together when they see that this sort of action is taking place against neighbors, etc. But it does beg the question - since government is a gang that by any standard today, is nothing more than organized crime, why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? I think the answer is equally absurd. Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote.
Click to expand...


why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? - 
Fear, 
apathy, 
ignorance - as you stated yourself most people feel they are part of it via the vote.
Lack of leadership and direction


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.
> 
> See the flaw in your argument yet?
Click to expand...


No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't.  It is an unproven assertion on your part.
> Recall Hobbes' formulation of man's existence in a state of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is no government people suddenly lose the ability to live? How does that work, exactly, because all of our rights exist because, despite the claims of totalitarian governments, everyone is born without direct intervention of the government. Then we have the ability to think, from which our freedom of speech and religion come from. I have seen absolutely no evidence that would even begin to support the claim that, without government, no one can think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have trouble separating your ideas from other people's.  Why I don't know.  Who suggested in the absence of gov't people couldn't live?
> An ability to think does not imply any kind of right to think, much less speak or practice religion.
Click to expand...


Aren't you the guy that keeps telling me that, without government, there are no rights?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you see infringing as?  What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...


What's the difference between being taxed on wages and not being paid at all?


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you see infringing as?  What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the difference between being taxed on wages and not being paid at all?
Click to expand...


What's the difference between a cheeseburger and a toilet bowl?
Why don't you answer the question instead of making stupid comparisons?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government.  Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs .  Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals  whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.
> 
> See the flaw in your argument yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.
Click to expand...


If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.
> 
> See the flaw in your argument yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
Click to expand...


Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.
> 
> See the flaw in your argument yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
Click to expand...


They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be.  Survival of the fittest   

Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?
Click to expand...


Is that a yes?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be.  Survival of the fittest
> 
> Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.
Click to expand...


There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a yes?
Click to expand...


Your previous question was "if rights dont exist without the government how can a person maintain their (sic) life without government."
How is that subject to a yes or no answer?

I sense you aren't doing well in this debate.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be.  Survival of the fittest
> 
> Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

There aren't any people there either.  But ask the penguins about cruelty from the Leopard Seal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. 

That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist. 

And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed. 

This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.


----------



## The Rabbi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.



Nonsense, all of it.
Rights are obviously alienable.  People are deprived of rights all the time.  Rights do not exist absent government.
Did you read any part of this thread?


----------



## beagle9

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.


Ok, now where has it all gone wrong ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your previous question was "if rights dont exist without the government how can a person maintain their (sic) life without government."
> How is that subject to a yes or no answer?
> 
> I sense you aren't doing well in this debate.
Click to expand...


My previous question to you was, "Aren't you the guy who says rights don't exist without the government?"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be.  Survival of the fittest
> 
> Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There aren't any people there either.  But ask the penguins about cruelty from the Leopard Seal.
Click to expand...


There are people there.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant secure any rights you think you should have unless there is a form of government.  You make up what rights you want and band together with like minded people to protect those rights. The only real right you have is to fight for your life. No one can take that from you but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I can secure my rights without the government. I do not need the government to tell when to think.
Click to expand...


No actually you cant. You need help.  All I have to do is come enforce my will on you and take your rights. For that matter any predator can come and take away your supposed right to live. What rights do you have if you are dead?  Are you having trouble seeing?  Where did I say you need the government to tell you when to think?


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be.  Survival of the fittest
> 
> Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...


Not a very good analogy.  There is no "society"  native to Anarctica - the only people there are researchers and minimal commercial activity - very minimal,  and yes there is Government of sorts -n extension ofthe Governments that sent people there to conduct research


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.
> 
> See the flaw in your argument yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
Click to expand...


Being alive = / = possessing a right to be alive
murdering someone = / = possessing a right to murder someone


----------



## GreenBean

The Rabbi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of one&#8217;s rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republic&#8217;s citizens&#8217; civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, all of it.
> Rights are obviously alienable.  People are deprived of rights all the time.  Rights do not exist absent government.
> Did you read any part of this thread?
Click to expand...


Rights are not something that man was born with, despite the use of the grandiose and assumpive term "inalienable"  by Tommy Jefferson - your rights under the Constitution could disappear in a heartbeat.  Such as the Asians who were interned in WWII on the west coast,  the Native Americans who were beaten off their lands - although they weren't considered "Men"- they were sub-human savages [as per the thinking of the day].  The African Americans - who never really had them till the last half Century and so on ... 

Government , as it was intended "*Of the people, by the people and for the people*"  is the only guarantoor of those so called "inalienable" rights - and it is far from perfect in its  duties of guranteeing them.

So far as being alive = the right to live  ---- explain that to a colin ferguson , or some other wack job while you're looking down the barrel of his Glock and you don't have one to defend yourself with because the Govt. says its a no no .


----------



## G.T.

GreenBean said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, all of it.
> Rights are obviously alienable.  People are deprived of rights all the time.  Rights do not exist absent government.
> Did you read any part of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are not something that man was born with, despite the use of the grandiose and assumpive term "inalienable"  by Tommy Jefferson - your rights under the Constitution could disappear in a heartbeat.  Such as the Asians who were interned in WWII on the west coast,  the Native Americans who were beaten off their lands - although they weren't considered "Men"- they were sub-human savages [as per the thinking of the day].  The African Americans - who never really had them till the last half Century and so on ...
> 
> Government , as it was intended "*Of the people, by the people and for the people*"  is the only guarantoor of those so called "inalienable" rights - and it is far from perfect in its  duties of guranteeing them.
Click to expand...


This is the problem with the entire conversation. 

The only fallback people have - when they think this ALLLLlll the way through - is to say that men are born with certain inalienable rights because....................................men said so. 

There has been no logically proven foundation otherwise, save for very weak-willed attempts such as "your instincts tell you to stay alive, thus, you have a RIGHT!" /derp


----------



## editec

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.



Clayton,

Please list those "innate rights" that you believe  "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."

I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.

What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?

Every innate right ceases when you die.

Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.

Shall I go on?


Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither *taken* nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "


----------



## GreenBean

editec said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> Please list those "innate rights" that you believe  "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."
> 
> I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.
> 
> What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?
> 
> Every innate right ceases when you die.
> 
> Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.
> 
> Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither *taken* nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "
Click to expand...


Clayton exists only as the extension of some reefer huffing pill popping lame ass liberals fantasy  ejaculated at us via his keyboard. He's not a real person , just an expression of someones toxic mental dysphoria


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your previous question was "if rights dont exist without the government how can a person maintain their (sic) life without government."
> How is that subject to a yes or no answer?
> 
> I sense you aren't doing well in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My previous question to you was, "Aren't you the guy who says rights don't exist without the government?"
Click to expand...

No actually it wasn't.  Look at the posts.
And no, rights dont exist without a government. Especially since all of the rights mentioned deal with things governments cannot outlaw.


----------



## dblack

editec said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of one&#8217;s rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republic&#8217;s citizens&#8217; civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> Please list those "innate rights" that you believe  "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."
> 
> I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.
> 
> What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?
> 
> Every innate right ceases when you die.
> 
> Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.
> 
> Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither *taken* nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "
Click to expand...


It's the distinction between 'taken' and 'violated'. Government can't _separate_ from you your ability to think and act for yourself (which is really all we're talking about). They can, anyone can, _violate_ your rights at anytime by blocking your actions. The point isn't that there's something magical that prevents others from interfering with your inalienable rights, just that they preexist any agency that we create to protect them. We have perfect freedom even when (indeed, only when) we're completely alone. It isn't until we interact with others that our freedom is at risk. 

It's a philosophical point, without obvious practical application. Which is likely why it confounds so many people. But it does have significance, especially when you consider different alternatives (to government) for securing freedom.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of one&#8217;s rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republic&#8217;s citizens&#8217; civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, all of it.
> Rights are obviously alienable.  People are deprived of rights all the time.  Rights do not exist absent government.
> Did you read any part of this thread?
Click to expand...


Did you? Try again. On this, Clayton is 100% right.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> Please list those "innate rights" that you believe  "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."
> 
> I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.
> 
> What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?
> 
> Every innate right ceases when you die.
> 
> Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.
> 
> Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither *taken* nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the distinction between 'taken' and 'violated'. Government can't _separate_ from you your ability to think and act for yourself (which is really all we're talking about). They can, anyone can, _violate_ your rights at anytime by blocking your actions. The point isn't that there's something magical that prevents others from interfering with your inalienable rights, just that they preexist any agency that we create to protect them. We have perfect freedom even when (indeed, only when) we're completely alone. It isn't until we interact with others that our freedom is at risk.
> 
> It's a philosophical point, without obvious practical application. Which is likely why it confounds so many people. But it does have significance, especially when you consider different alternatives (to government) for securing freedom.
Click to expand...


There's no logical proof, or deductive reasoning, behind our rights being inborn and inalienable. Therefore, it is not philosophical at all, it's pseudo intellect.


----------



## G.T.

Humans and other animals have instincts. 

Instincts do not prove inborn rights. 

Humans want to live. 

This does not prove an inborn right to live. 

Humans want to be happy. 

This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness. 

& fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> Please list those "innate rights" that you believe  "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."
> 
> I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.
> 
> What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?
> 
> Every innate right ceases when you die.
> 
> Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.
> 
> Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither *taken* nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the distinction between 'taken' and 'violated'. Government can't _separate_ from you your ability to think and act for yourself (which is really all we're talking about). They can, anyone can, _violate_ your rights at anytime by blocking your actions. The point isn't that there's something magical that prevents others from interfering with your inalienable rights, just that they preexist any agency that we create to protect them. We have perfect freedom even when (indeed, only when) we're completely alone. It isn't until we interact with others that our freedom is at risk.
> 
> It's a philosophical point, without obvious practical application. Which is likely why it confounds so many people. But it does have significance, especially when you consider different alternatives (to government) for securing freedom.
Click to expand...

As I wrote in my first post, those arguing for natural rights cannot distinguish any difference between infringing on those rights and the non existence of those rights.  You've just proven my point.
If gov't can infringe and nullify those rights without consequence, then do they really even exist?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Yes, they do.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> Humans and other animals have instincts.
> 
> Instincts do not prove inborn rights.
> 
> Humans want to live.
> 
> This does not prove an inborn right to live.
> 
> Humans want to be happy.
> 
> This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness.
> 
> & fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.




Why is it you can not find the distinction between instinct and cognition? It's like you got stuck at a skip in the record.


----------



## G.T.

Still no logical proof that they do, only mere assertion. 

I'd love to see the because a, then b rational breakdown.

Of course, it doesn't exist.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and other animals have instincts.
> 
> Instincts do not prove inborn rights.
> 
> Humans want to live.
> 
> This does not prove an inborn right to live.
> 
> Humans want to be happy.
> 
> This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness.
> 
> & fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you can not find the distinction between instinct and cognition? It's like you got stuck at a skip in the record.
Click to expand...


I was addressing someone *else's* point about instinct, so uh, here's a napkin for that eggwash


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans and other animals have instincts.
> 
> Instincts do not prove inborn rights.
> 
> Humans want to live.
> 
> This does not prove an inborn right to live.
> 
> Humans want to be happy.
> 
> This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness.
> 
> & fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you can not find the distinction between instinct and cognition? It's like you got stuck at a skip in the record.
Click to expand...


also - you can replace "instincts do not" and replace it with "cognition does not" and it still cannot be defeated with logic. g'luck, you'll need it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Clearly it's over your head. Clearly.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Clearly it's over your head. Clearly.



You're here to insult people and offer no logical deduction. 

We get it, you're better off in the flame wars areas though.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

We've gone over it already. I'm not getting back in that hamster wheel to no where again. Believe whatever you like.


----------



## G.T.

You haven't posted any logical assertion that proves that rights are inborn. 

G'luck in the future.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Philosophy is tough, I get it.


----------



## dblack

TakeAStepBack said:


> Philosophy is tough, I get it.



I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is tough, I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.
> 
> For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?
Click to expand...


Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you. 

The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is tough, I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.
> 
> For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.
> 
> The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.
Click to expand...


I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is tough, I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.
> 
> *For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?*
Click to expand...


The way I'm understanding the position, that's simply instinct. Which is of course the defining difference between cognition and instinct. Men work off instinct in the same way animals work off cognition. Which is how we've devised entire philosophical theorems/propositions that can guide the existence of man beyond the realms of the rest of the animal kingdom. This concept seems to be too intellectually vague for some. So the fall back appears to be that man's only intellectual asset is in the form of a collective. From this collective, principles are established to dictate social norms. Or, more to the point, other men grant the "rights" we discuss. It's more or less simply a privilege rather than a right. as there are none without a government to grant such privilege.


oh well.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.
> 
> For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.
> 
> The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.
Click to expand...


Penalty Box! -10 points! 

Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them. As the Rabbi says, you can not prove that they had such abilities if someone can remove them via a violent resolution. So the only way to determine that they had such a right is through enforcement by government. Which is where you gain your privileges. Through other men. Alone you're simply an animal in the kingdom living off instinct. it's a fascinating proposition say none the least.


----------



## dblack

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.
> 
> The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Penalty Box! -10 points!
> 
> Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them.
Click to expand...


Inalienable rights are. That's the entire point. You're making the same mistake as most everyone else here.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.
> 
> For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.
> 
> The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. *Short of killing a person*, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.
Click to expand...


That's a circular argument. 

I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction. 

The argument is *where do inborn rights come from*. 

The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable. 

The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with. 

Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from." 

That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yes, they do.



So you've had reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, and mere assertion.  I can't remember if there was an ipse dixit fallacy in there as well.
When you get an actual argument come back and we'll talk.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penalty Box! -10 points!
> 
> Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inalienable rights are. That's the entire point. You're making the same mistake as most everyone else here.
Click to expand...


I'm being deliberately facetious.


----------



## dblack

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Penalty Box! -10 points!
> 
> Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable rights are. That's the entire point. You're making the same mistake as most everyone else here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm being deliberately facetious.
Click to expand...


Heh.. ok. I wasn't wondering what was going on.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've had reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, and mere assertion.  I can't remember if there was an ipse dixit fallacy in there as well.
> When you get an actual argument come back and we'll talk.
Click to expand...


Question mark is, will you ever point out the proper fallacies with this constant lobbing of them into the discussion. It seems to be your new thing, but you're not getting them right.


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is tough, I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.
> 
> For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?
Click to expand...


Someone completely alone does not need rights. Rights are a description of the relationship between individuals and government.  Take away one of those and the idea of rights is unnecessary.
So the argument fails.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've had reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, and mere assertion.  I can't remember if there was an ipse dixit fallacy in there as well.
> When you get an actual argument come back and we'll talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question mark is, will you ever point out the proper fallacies with this constant lobbing of them into the discussion. It seems to be your new thing, but you're not getting them right.
Click to expand...


I did point out hte proper fallacies.  I am waiting for a proper argument.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.
> 
> The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. *Short of killing a person*, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a circular argument.
> 
> I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.
> 
> The argument is *where do inborn rights come from*.
> 
> The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.
> 
> The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.
> 
> Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."
> 
> That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...



Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government). 

Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> Someone completely alone does not need rights. Rights are a description of the relationship between individuals and government.  Take away one of those and the idea of rights is unnecessary.
> So the argument fails.



Do you realize that you guys are actually making the circular argument? Sure, if you *define* 'right' as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", it will have no meaning without the presence of a government. But that's not how Jefferson defined it.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. *Short of killing a person*, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a circular argument.
> 
> I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.
> 
> The argument is *where do inborn rights come from*.
> 
> The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.
> 
> The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.
> 
> Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."
> 
> That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).
> 
> Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.
Click to expand...


You don't have the inalienable "freedom" to live, either. If you can logically deduce why it's inalienable, I am all ears. 

Problem is, it cannot be logically deduced. 

That is the sticking point. That means that the thinking is inept, and the concept is incorrect. 

When it can be proven, it will enshrine its viability in the halls of man foreva and eva and eva, but it cannot. 

And stop conflating myself and the rabbi with the whole "the government" conversation. THAT WASNT ME.


----------



## TakeAStepBack




----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. *Short of killing a person*, you can't _remove_ that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a circular argument.
> 
> I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.
> 
> The argument is *where do inborn rights come from*.
> 
> The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.
> 
> The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.
> 
> Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."
> 
> That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).
> 
> Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.
Click to expand...


You've substituted one word for another.  That isn't an argument.
Where do inalienable freedoms come from? Do I have an inalienable freedom to steal your stuff?  To kill you if I dont like you?  To kill you if I think you're a threat?  Is there an inalenienable freedom to wear a hat?  To speak French?  To advocate genocide?  To advocate assasinations?
For most of human history, no one had freedom of any kind.  How can there be an inalienable freedom when it was clearly alienated from most of humanity?


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone completely alone does not need rights. Rights are a description of the relationship between individuals and government.  Take away one of those and the idea of rights is unnecessary.
> So the argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that you guys are actually making the circular argument? Sure, if you *define* 'right' as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", it will have no meaning without the presence of a government. But that's not how Jefferson defined it.
Click to expand...


So tell us how Jefferson defined it.  Recall the Declaration says that governments exist to secure these rights.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a circular argument.
> 
> I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.
> 
> The argument is *where do inborn rights come from*.
> 
> The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.
> 
> The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.
> 
> Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."
> 
> That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).
> 
> Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've substituted one word for another.  That isn't an argument.
> Where do inalienable freedoms come from? Do I have an inalienable freedom to steal your stuff?  To kill you if I dont like you?  To kill you if I think you're a threat?  Is there an inalenienable freedom to wear a hat?  To speak French?  To advocate genocide?  To advocate assasinations?
Click to expand...


Exactly. Yes.



> For most of human history, no one had freedom of any kind.  How can there be an inalienable freedom when it was clearly alienated from most of humanity?



Because they aren't _alienated_. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone completely alone does not need rights. Rights are a description of the relationship between individuals and government.  Take away one of those and the idea of rights is unnecessary.
> So the argument fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that you guys are actually making the circular argument? Sure, if you *define* 'right' as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", it will have no meaning without the presence of a government. But that's not how Jefferson defined it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell us how Jefferson defined it.
Click to expand...


As I said, he just meant 'freedom', as in freedom to think and act - i.e. free will.



> Recall the Declaration says that governments exist to secure these rights.



The key here is that he didn't say ALL of these 'rights' (freedoms). Our freedoms inevitably come into conflict, which is why we need government. We create government to protect as many of our mutual freedoms as possible.


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).
> 
> Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've substituted one word for another.  That isn't an argument.
> Where do inalienable freedoms come from? Do I have an inalienable freedom to steal your stuff?  To kill you if I dont like you?  To kill you if I think you're a threat?  Is there an inalenienable freedom to wear a hat?  To speak French?  To advocate genocide?  To advocate assasinations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For most of human history, no one had freedom of any kind.  How can there be an inalienable freedom when it was clearly alienated from most of humanity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't _alienated_. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.
Click to expand...


So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.


----------



## G.T.

You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms. 

You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are *BORN* with them, and that they naturally exist.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms.
> 
> You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are *BORN* with them, and that they naturally exist.



You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will.  Or something.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms.
> 
> You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are *BORN* with them, and that they naturally exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will.  Or something.
Click to expand...


Yet that's what the debate hinges on. So many of our arguments come down to simple disagreements on word meanings.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms.
> 
> You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are *BORN* with them, and that they naturally exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will.  Or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet that's what the debate hinges on. So many of our arguments come down to simple disagreements on word meanings.
Click to expand...


Well, not really. 

All we're talking about is the source. 

If you can state a logical proof as to *what* makes these certain freedoms inborn and inalienable, then your case is made. 

My contention is that they were simply "declared" inalienable, by men. 

That they actually ARE inalienable is unprovable; therefore, their existence rests on men's declaration as such and so men/governments/communities, etc, whatever, simply rolling with the concept that theyre inalienable is what keeps them in tact. Not that they inherently actually ARE.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

While words do have meaning, it becomes evident when people form a stance predicated off semantics. Which is why I gave up long ago playing repeater on this. Without being able to hold inalienable rights in your hands, some believe that only other men may validate the very idea that you're born with free will, and since free will involves cognition, one may reason. This leads to propositions such as the recognition of this demands self ownership, and certain associated rights that benchmark the importance of the proposition. Should man have never recognized his free will, and in so, inalienable rights, we'd still be living under divine rule. Or that such rule was also counterproductive tot he will of man.


At any rate, it's fine either way. Some believe they are born with certain inalienable rights. Granted to them by their very existence in nature. Some will call upon a god, while others will fall back on the notion that only other men may validate any right they perceive, which makes them merely privileges bestowed upon an individual by other men. We know where GT and Rabbi stand. It is men that validate their rights, their will, and perhaps their very existence.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> While words do have meaning, it becomes evident when people form a stance predicated off semantics. Which is why I gave up long ago playing repeater on this. Without being able to hold inalienable rights in your hands, some believe that only other men may validate the very idea that you're born with free will, and since free will involves cognition, one may reason. This leads to propositions such as the recognition of this demands self ownership, and certain associated rights that benchmark the importance of the proposition. Should man have never recognized his free will, and in so, inalienable rights, we'd still be living under divine rule. Or that such rule was also counterproductive tot he will of man.
> 
> 
> At any rate, it's fine either way. Some believe they are born with certain inalienable rights. Granted to them by their very existence in nature. Some will call upon a god, while others will fall back on the notion that only other men may validate any right they perceive, which makes them merely privileges bestowed upon an individual by other men. We know where GT and Rabbi stand. It is men that validate their rights, their will, and perhaps their very existence.




Your posts are all hyperbole and ad hominem, and never once have you proved the assertion that rights are inborn. It cannot be proven. If it can, you have not done so or even made the slightest attempt, you are here to insult people like a child.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will.  Or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet that's what the debate hinges on. So many of our arguments come down to simple disagreements on word meanings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not really.
> 
> All we're talking about is the source.
> 
> If you can state a logical proof as to *what* makes these certain freedoms inborn and inalienable, then your case is made.
> 
> My contention is that they were simply "declared" inalienable, by men.
> 
> That they actually ARE inalienable is unprovable; therefore, their existence rests on men's declaration as such and so men/governments/communities, etc, whatever, simply rolling with the concept that theyre inalienable is what keeps them in tact. Not that they inherently actually ARE.
Click to expand...


It doesn't require proof because it's in the premise. The human mind is defined, in part, as a thing that possesses volition - free will. That's what makes it different than a machine or a calculator. I guess you could, in some sense, 'alienate' a person's innate freedoms by destroying their ability to think for themselves (by reducing them to some vegetative state, perhaps). But I think most of us would agree that, at that point, they're no longer 'human'.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

There is no insult in there. That's the deduction I've taken away from this. I've even once again tried to show you HOW and WHY man formulated the philosophical stance of inalienable rights, yet you breezed over it and went for "you're being mean and not making any argument."
It's a classic, but I'm not buying it, dude.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> There is no insult in there. That's the deduction I've taken away from this. I've even once again tried to show you HOW and WHY man formulated the philosophical stance of inalienable rights, yet you breezed over it and went for "you're being mean and not making any argument."
> It's a classic, but I'm not buying it, dude.



The how and why men formed the stance.............. is not in question. Maybe that's why you're confused.

The question is: *do they come from said men, or are they actually pre existing. *

In order anyone to know if they factually preexist, that must be proven.

It cannot and has not been.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> do they come from said men, or are they actually pre existing.



It's not that simple, As 350 plus posts has obviously determined. Before we can simplify it that far, we have make other deductions. When we say "pre-existing" does that mean before an individual was brought into the world? Or based upon his very existence in the world? By pre-existing do we mean BEFORE any interactions involving a social setting where others are to be considered? Such as a governance, community, society, etc..?

That's sort of why philosophy isn't all "to be, or not to be.." when you start breaking it down. I've tried to convey the answer to your question in several ways, for several pages of this thread.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> do they come from said men, or are they actually pre existing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that simple, As 350 plus posts has obviously determined. Before we can simplify it that far, we have make other deductions. When we say "pre-existing" does that mean before an individual was brought into the world? Or based upon his very existence in the world? By pre-existing do we mean BEFORE any interactions involving a social setting where others are to be considered? Such as a governance, community, society, etc..?
> 
> That's sort of why philosophy isn't all "to be, or not to be.." when you start breaking it down. I've tried to convey the answer to your question in several ways, for several pages of this thread.
Click to expand...


Perfect, yes words have meanings I agree. 

Given to you by nature is not the same thing as given to you by human philosophy - albeit you attempted the canard that "men are a part of nature." Yes, men are a part of nature, but nature in the sense of inalienable rights is "nature or your creator," meaning *THE SUM OF HOW WE GOT HERE*, not "a tiny part of nature, men's brain, gave you these rights philosophically." 

Until you're past that canard, we're actually in agreement because I believe the rights came from man's philosophy and not from a creator, and not inherited unto by birth and birth alone.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> Given to you by nature is not the same thing as given to you by human philosophy - albeit you attempted the canard that "men are a part of nature." Yes, men are a part of nature, but nature in the sense of inalienable rights is "nature or your creator," meaning THE SUM OF HOW WE GOT HERE, not "a tiny part of nature, men's brain, gave you these rights philosophically."



I'll say it again, I suppose. The idea behind calling them natural, is to make a critical distinction between whether or not each individual (egalitarian, as Rabbi disagrees) has them from his "natural" place on earth, or whether or not other men bestow them. Remember the time frame in which we recognized these "rights". It's not a tangible assertion where you get a box upon entering the world that contains the tools to make such claims. It is a philosophical understanding. It's part of when men began enlightenment. Where science, and human behavioral observation beat out religious dogma of divine right.

That's why the distinction was made. it's essentially comes down to "for lack of a better phrasing". And that each man may have these rights (even though humans are hypocrites and say it then violate them from some) as he has reason, free will and cognition (which is where the game of semantics began).


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Given to you by nature is not the same thing as given to you by human philosophy - albeit you attempted the canard that "men are a part of nature." Yes, men are a part of nature, but nature in the sense of inalienable rights is "nature or your creator," meaning THE SUM OF HOW WE GOT HERE, not "a tiny part of nature, men's brain, gave you these rights philosophically."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again, I suppose. The idea behind calling them natural, is to make a critical distinction between whether or not each individual (egalitarian, as Rabbi disagrees) has them from his "natural" place on earth, or whether or not other men bestow them. Remember the time frame in which we recognized these "rights". It's not a tangible assertion where you get a box upon entering the world that contains the tools to make such claims. It is a philosophical understanding. It's part of when men began enlightenment. Where science, and human behavioral observation beat out religious dogma of divine right.
> 
> That's why the distinction was made. it's essentially comes down to "for lack of a better phrasing". And that each man may have these rights (even though humans are hypocrites and say it then violate them from some) as he has reason, free will and cognition (which is where the game of semantics began).
Click to expand...


The problem is -that at the end of the day "men" deciding upon them philosophically makes them necessarily "granted" by men. Not by birth. 

Or put less poetically: 

men philosophically concluding youre born with these rights is the same as them coming from men - not from birth, so the concept of them coming from nature/creator/birth is flawed from the get go. 




It's also not logically provable that they come from nature or a creator. Not at all. Not even by a long shot. They don't have to be a physical thing to be proven, they have to simply be a testable fact.. 




The only rational conclusion is that "men agree" that these "should be granted by birthright." 

Not that they inherently are, based on......................what, destiny?


----------



## G.T.

unalienable rights are an abstract idea, not a provable assertion


----------



## TakeAStepBack

OK, well We're about to go round the circle again and I ain't goin'. Enjoy.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> OK, well We're about to go round the circle again and I ain't goin'. Enjoy.



all of your posts have led to the conclusion that they're unalienable because men wanted them to be, men decided that they should be........................

not that they actually are


that they are in actuality inborn, is nothing you can prove. 

it is an unprovable assertion. you cannot, you have not, you wont


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You're not born with free will, cognition (reason/logic)? That's fine. Enjoy, dude.


----------



## G.T.

Free will is not a right to life. They are not one in the same.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!


----------



## oldfart

The Rabbi said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both rights and obligations are aspects of social institutions, such as religion, law, economic structures, families, and so forth.  Sometimes more than one institution is involved in a particular behavior (legal regulation of corporate forms and religious and family mores on stealing come to mind), and there is a potential for conflict among institutions. *  Did Jacob and Esau have a legally binding contract?  Did one have a moral obligation to not cheat his brother?*
> 
> It matters very little where philosophically these rights and obligations come from, they exist and are enforced.  What is enforced and how are the relevant questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, sort of.
> Yes, sort of.  He also had an obligation to obey his mother.  Nor did he cheat his brother particularly.
Click to expand...


Thanks for reinforcing my point.  Quite apart from the legalities of contract law, law of inheritance, etc, was the issue of family norms.  Rights and duties can have multiple origins, and nothing guarantees they will be consistent.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!



that's mea culpa. 

you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn

your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's mea culpa.
> 
> you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn
> 
> your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless
Click to expand...


Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's mea culpa.
> 
> you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn
> 
> your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
Click to expand...


Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's mea culpa.
> 
> you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn
> 
> your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
Click to expand...


I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.
Click to expand...


No, I'm seeking its origin. 

Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm seeking its origin.
> 
> Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?
Click to expand...


Why would I have any interest in proving _your_ definition of a term? I don't even think it makes sense.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm seeking its origin.
> 
> Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I have any interest in proving _your_ definition of a term? I don't even think it makes sense.
Click to expand...


You cant even prove your own, so youre right there is no point. 

Natural rights were defined by the founders. 

We're not talking about YOUR idea of natural rights. 

We are asking: where is there PROOF that they come from nature or a creator, as described by those philosophers.



And the answer is that there is no proof. It is an abstract concept.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you see infringing as?  What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...


I see you're still trying to save face by implying that the answer you've been given to this very question again and again and again and again and again and again is not satisfactory, while in fact you have not once even attempted to directly refute the obvious, ontological and historical actualities of the answer.

I see right through, Rabbi, and always have.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's mea culpa.
> 
> you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn
> 
> your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm seeking its origin.
> 
> Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I have any interest in proving _your_ definition of a term? I don't even think it makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cant even prove your own, so youre right there is no point.
> 
> Natural rights were defined by the founders.
> 
> We're not talking about YOUR idea of natural rights.
> 
> We are asking: where is there PROOF that they come from nature or a creator, as described by those philosophers.
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is that there is no proof. It is an abstract concept.
Click to expand...


Huh... looks like you're the winner!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The entire concept of ontology is abstract.  In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation". 

And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.

You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent to assert free will?
Click to expand...


Essentially, yes. That's his position.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that free will ontologically precedes the principle of the sanctity of human life?
Click to expand...


Sanctity is a human philosophical concept.

Edit:

Saw your edit. 
That we have free will does not speak to the origin of our rights, it only speaks to our desire for said rights.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> The entire concept of ontology is abstract.



Yes, that's right. 

And there is a "therefore" at the end of that. 


It's "therefore, rights are an abstract concept brought on by human philosophy; ergo, can be taken away by same."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

TakeAStepBack said:


> The entire concept of ontology is abstract.  In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation".
> 
> And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.
> 
> You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.


 
Not at all.  I'm using the term in its most concrete sense relative to the rational and physical aspects of _being_ in common experience, and Rabbi knows that as I've made that abundantly clear again and again.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?
Click to expand...


Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman. 

But to your re-edited question -

1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me. 

2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.

We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask

"is the color blue really blue."

it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire concept of ontology is abstract.  In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation".
> 
> And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.
> 
> You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm using the term in its most concrete sense relative to the rational and physical aspects of _being_ in common experience, and Rabbi knows that as I've made that abundantly clear again and again.
Click to expand...


I wasn't addressing you, sir/ma'am. I was addressing GT's conceptual boundary.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.
> 
> We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask
> 
> "is the color blue really blue."
> 
> it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.



"Nothing is real in your perception."


That is false.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman.
> 
> But to your re-edited question -
> 
> 1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me.
> 
> 2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.
Click to expand...


Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.
> 
> We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask
> 
> "is the color blue really blue."
> 
> it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing is real in your perception."
> 
> 
> That is false.
Click to expand...


if we're going off abstract concept, then no. Nothing is real.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman.
> 
> But to your re-edited question -
> 
> 1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me.
> 
> 2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"
Click to expand...


You're extrapolating something irrationally. 

In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract. 

Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute. 



Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.
> 
> We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask
> 
> "is the color blue really blue."
> 
> it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing is real in your perception."
> 
> 
> That is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if we're going off abstract concept, then no. Nothing is real.
Click to expand...


"we're going off?"

What the hell does this even mean. 

Calling one ting abstract is not the same as calling everything in existence abstract. You make that up out of whole cloth.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman.
> 
> But to your re-edited question -
> 
> 1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me.
> 
> 2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're extrapolating something irrationally.
> 
> In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract.
> 
> Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute.
> 
> 
> 
> Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).
Click to expand...


It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.

dilemma of determinism is where we're at now.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're extrapolating something irrationally.
> 
> In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract.
> 
> Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute.
> 
> 
> 
> Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one conflating all terms with all of their abstract forms, that's you doing that. 

I'm pretty good with "operated by an outside being" as having a basic meaning in English and do not need to extrapolate the abstract from it to determine what I meant by that. 

And it goes the same for determining if free will is real or abstract. It is real because it is provable. If you can disprove it, be my guest.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Quantum mechanics, anyone?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've substituted one word for another.  That isn't an argument.
> Where do inalienable freedoms come from? Do I have an inalienable freedom to steal your stuff?  To kill you if I dont like you?  To kill you if I think you're a threat?  Is there an inalenienable freedom to wear a hat?  To speak French?  To advocate genocide?  To advocate assasinations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For most of human history, no one had freedom of any kind.  How can there be an inalienable freedom when it was clearly alienated from most of humanity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't _alienated_. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
> Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.
Click to expand...


This is the sort nonsense that historically clueless leftists spout.  Because the imperatives of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof _do_ exist, it's not possible to enslave or persecute others for any significant length of time without incurring the wrath, as it were, of some very serious consequences.  The downfall of every civilization now residing in the ash heap of history goes to the depravity of man's inhumanity to man under the banner of one tyrannical regime or another.  God is not mocked, and He is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities.

You were roundly refuted on that score here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-16.html#post8866687

And again here: 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863493

And you are refuted again.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're extrapolating something irrationally.
> 
> In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract.
> 
> Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute.
> 
> 
> 
> Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one conflating all terms to their abstract forms, that's you doing that.
> 
> I'm pretty good with "operated by an outside being" as having a basic meaning in English one and do not need to extrapolate to the abstract with it.
> 
> And it goes the same for determining if free will is real or abstract. It is real because it is provable. If you can disprove it, be my guest.
Click to expand...


Physical models put forth are both deterministic and indeterministic. Left to interpretation though quantum mechanics. So it isn't provable. it's a concept. But again, i feel you're prescribing a specific, personal definition to free will. Which means you can then give it origination and break new ground.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one conflating all terms to their abstract forms, that's you doing that.
> 
> I'm pretty good with "operated by an outside being" as having a basic meaning in English one and do not need to extrapolate to the abstract with it.
> 
> And it goes the same for determining if free will is real or abstract. It is real because it is provable. If you can disprove it, be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physical models put forth are both deterministic and indeterministic. Left to interpretation though quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...


Let me know when they come up with someone else is operating your brain, as a breakthrough. I'll pay pal ya some cheddar for your prediction.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

TakeAStepBack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire concept of ontology is abstract.  In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation".
> 
> And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.
> 
> You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm using the term in its most concrete sense relative to the rational and physical aspects of _being_ in common experience, and Rabbi knows that as I've made that abundantly clear again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't addressing you, sir/ma'am. I was addressing GT's conceptual boundary.
Click to expand...


It's Sir.  Sorry, Take, I had just used the term in a post above yours.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.



Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own. 

My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that *will* can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.


----------



## midcan5

There is no such thing as a natural right.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own.
> 
> My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that *will* can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.
Click to expand...


Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.


----------



## natstew

Back to "Rights before Government":

All Governments can do is limit, control, take away our rights.
GOVERNMENT is power, power corrupts, corruption never expands rights, and that's why our Constitution severely limits the powers of our Government. Those limitations were violated a long, long time ago. We live under an oppressive, tyrannical, corrupt Government. Obama has surpassed all previous Presidents when it comes to tyranny.

Before Government there were Rights. Our Government was created to protect those rights.


----------



## natstew

The "Experiment of Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" that Lincoln spoke of at the Gettysburg National Cemetery Dedication is a great failure.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own.
> 
> My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that *will* can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.
Click to expand...


My point was to prove that it _*cannot be determined *_that Rights are inborn. 

That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct. 

If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid. 

It's a cold hard truth. 

Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject. 

It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.


----------



## G.T.

natstew said:


> The "Experiment of Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" that Lincoln spoke of at the Gettysburg National Cemetery Dedication is a great failure.



Not exactly. It has helped us extend our lifespan, explode our technological capabilities, put us on the moon, and also has been the freest sort of Government to date in terms of Governments. 

It is being infested by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and greed now, no doubt. But it certainly wasn't a failure.


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.
Click to expand...


Free will is a property of the human mind. Rights are not a property of the human mind.  A person permanently comatose has no free will. But no one will argue he doesn't have natural rights simply because he is comatose.
You cannot redefine natural rights to mean free will.  You might as well define them as chicken dinner.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own.
> 
> My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that *will* can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was to prove that it _*cannot be determined *_that Rights are inborn.
> 
> That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.
> 
> If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.
> 
> It's a cold hard truth.
> 
> Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.
> 
> It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.
Click to expand...


Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to prove that it _*cannot be determined *_that Rights are inborn.
> 
> That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.
> 
> If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.
> 
> It's a cold hard truth.
> 
> Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.
> 
> It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.
Click to expand...


ALmost by definition that has to be the case.  Who else bestows them?


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to prove that it _*cannot be determined *_that Rights are inborn.
> 
> That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.
> 
> If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.
> 
> It's a cold hard truth.
> 
> Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.
> 
> It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.
Click to expand...




The conversation started as a question of where rights came from. 

You agreed with rabbi and I that they were abstract and un-provable. 

The mental masturbator the whole time was yourself.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to prove that it _*cannot be determined *_that Rights are inborn.
> 
> That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.
> 
> If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.
> 
> It's a cold hard truth.
> 
> Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.
> 
> It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation started as a question of where rights came from.
> 
> You agreed with rabbi and I that they were abstract and un-provable.
> 
> The mental masturbator the whole time was yourself.
Click to expand...


Uh, no. That's not how it went. But go with it! I've long since given up on keeping this within the proper realm and context. I even ran a game of repeater several times (something I f'in despise) on it.

It's all abstract, Brah. Nothing is real, everything is permitted.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to prove that it _*cannot be determined *_that Rights are inborn.
> 
> That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.
> 
> If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.
> 
> It's a cold hard truth.
> 
> Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.
> 
> It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALmost by definition that has to be the case.  Who else bestows them?
Click to expand...


We already got you to say that these "rights" aren't egalitarian. So, we're not even on the same planet in this discussion.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALmost by definition that has to be the case.  Who else bestows them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already got you to say that these "rights" aren't egalitarian. So, we're not even on the same planet in this discussion.
Click to expand...


You never got me to say any such thing.  There are no such things as natural rights, so how could I say they weren't egalitarian?


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation started as a question of where rights came from.
> 
> You agreed with rabbi and I that they were abstract and un-provable.
> 
> The mental masturbator the whole time was yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no. That's not how it went. But go with it! I've long since given up on keeping this within the proper realm and context. I even ran a game of repeater several times (something I f'in despise) on it.
> 
> It's all abstract, Brah. Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that nothing is real, that's just me I guess.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALmost by definition that has to be the case.  Who else bestows them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already got you to say that these "rights" aren't egalitarian. So, we're not even on the same planet in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never got me to say any such thing.  There are no such things as natural rights, so how could I say they weren't egalitarian?
Click to expand...


Can i atleast get a "false dichotomy", or an ad absurdum?


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already got you to say that these "rights" aren't egalitarian. So, we're not even on the same planet in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never got me to say any such thing.  There are no such things as natural rights, so how could I say they weren't egalitarian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can i atleast get a "false dichotomy", or an ad absurdum?
Click to expand...


How about apologizing for lying about what he said, as a starter dish?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that free will ontologically precedes the principle of the sanctity of human life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctity is a human philosophical concept.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saw your edit.
> That we have free will does not speak to the origin of our rights, it only speaks to our desire for said rights.
Click to expand...


Thank you, G.T.  The first version confounded the point, expressing something I didn't intend.

However, the principle of the sanctity of human life is not a mere construct of culture.  You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic metaphysical presupposition.  Good luck proving that in the face of the classical laws of logic.

The principle of the sanctity of human life is embedded in God Himself, who is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities, not the stuff of some cultural construct. 

And I already substantiated _my_ premise here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863493

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mere assertion
> Factual error
> False dichotomy.
> You're not doing well here.
> 
> In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
> It is not basic.  People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups.  Something you didnt consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.
> 
> Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts.
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  *Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist. *
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
Click to expand...


No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that free will ontologically precedes the principle of the sanctity of human life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctity is a human philosophical concept.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saw your edit.
> That we have free will does not speak to the origin of our rights, it only speaks to our desire for said rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, G.T.  The first version confounded the point, expressing something I didn't intend.
> 
> However, the principle of the sanctity of human life is not a mere construct of culture.  You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic metaphysical presupposition.  Good luck proving that in the face of the classical laws of logic.
> 
> The principle of the sanctity of human life is embedded in God Himself, who is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities, not the stuff of some cultural construct.
> 
> And I already substantiated _my_ premise here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863493
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497
Click to expand...


You cannot assert a God and have a conversation with me. 

I'm an agnostic and not going down that road. 

I can prove that it's at least *currently* a construct of human culture quite simply by pointing to the fact that without proof of a deity, it's the ONLY other place it could come from. And humans have not proven a deity. And I won't have a God debate.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.
> 
> Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts.
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  *Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist. *
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.
Click to expand...


He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.

In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.

Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup. 

There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING. 

You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context. 

and I apologize for saying you lied, too.


----------



## Katzndogz

After 28 pages, it is confirmed that there are a number of people who believe that human beings have no rights other than which is bestowed by the government who also holds the right and power to withdraw any individual right it chooses.

Which means we are in for some very serious trouble.


----------



## G.T.

Katzndogz said:


> After 28 pages, it is confirmed that there are a number of people who believe that human beings have no rights other than which is bestowed by the government who also holds the right and power to withdraw any individual right it chooses.
> 
> Which means we are in for some very serious trouble.



Good thing we have plenty of people, such as myself, who don't believe that.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts.
> Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't.  *Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist. *
> And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave.  An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.
> 
> In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.
> 
> Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.
> 
> There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.
> 
> You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.
> 
> and I apologize for saying you lied, too.
Click to expand...


TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 28 pages, it is confirmed that there are a number of people who believe that human beings have no rights other than which is bestowed by the government who also holds the right and power to withdraw any individual right it chooses.
> 
> Which means we are in for some very serious trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing we have plenty of people, such as myself, who don't believe that.
Click to expand...


That would be two of us.  I wonder who he is talking about.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.
> 
> In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.
> 
> Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.
> 
> There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.
> 
> You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.
> 
> and I apologize for saying you lied, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
Click to expand...


I agree that natural rights don't exist. 

But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc. 

I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct


----------



## hunarcy

G.T. said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.
> 
> In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.
> 
> Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.
> 
> There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.
> 
> You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.
> 
> and I apologize for saying you lied, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
Click to expand...


So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?


----------



## G.T.

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?
Click to expand...


There was an instinct to. 

A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.
> 
> In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.
> 
> Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.
> 
> There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.
> 
> You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.
> 
> and I apologize for saying you lied, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
Click to expand...


Then what you are describing are not "natural" rights at all.  IOW, there are rights that exist not like air exists but like etiquette exists.  Which is prety much what I mean when I say they are constructs of society. This society believes in things like free speech. Ergo we have free speech.  When some gov't official or other tries to squelch it, society, through its organizations, pushes back to guarantee it.  The Japanese interned in WW2 are a good example.  It was a violation of their rights.  There was pushback, granted way too late, and many of them were compensated for it.  So there were consequences for violating their rights.
But that was particular to this society.  Germany never had an idea of natural rights.  Rights were what the gov't said they were.  So when the Nazi government redefined rights in one way or another there was no consequence.  That is the difference.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.
> 
> In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.
> 
> Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.
> 
> There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.
> 
> You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.
> 
> and I apologize for saying you lied, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
Click to expand...


Damn, if only you could have been moar specific with the fallacies. Can we get a  false dichotomy? Maybe a argumentum e silentio, circulus in demonstrando or reptrospective determinism?

Seriously. I didn't lie about what you said.I even linked it up! Further, your stance of there is no natural rights falls directly in line with other men, i.e. government (as they are the "authority) bestows an individual with "rights". Yet you disagree with KatznDogz. It's a very interesting, perhaps even fascinating display.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what you are describing are not "natural" rights at all.  IOW, there are rights that exist not like air exists but like etiquette exists.  Which is prety much what I mean when I say they are constructs of society. This society believes in things like free speech. Ergo we have free speech.  When some gov't official or other tries to squelch it, society, through its organizations, pushes back to guarantee it.  The Japanese interned in WW2 are a good example.  It was a violation of their rights.  There was pushback, granted way too late, and many of them were compensated for it.  So there were consequences for violating their rights.
> But that was particular to this society.  Germany never had an idea of natural rights.  Rights were what the gov't said they were.  So when the Nazi government redefined rights in one way or another there was no consequence.  That is the difference.
Click to expand...


Sounds like we agree.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights! 

I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.
> 
> In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.
> 
> Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.
> 
> There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.
> 
> You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.
> 
> and I apologize for saying you lied, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, if only you could have been moar specific with the fallacies. Can we get a  false dichotomy? Maybe a argumentum e silentio, circulus in demonstrando or reptrospective determinism?
> 
> Seriously. I didn't lie about what you said.I even linked it up! Further, your stance of there is no natural rights falls directly in line with other men, i.e. government (as they are the "authority) bestows an individual with "rights". Yet you disagree with KatznDogz. It's a very interesting, perhaps even fascinating display.
Click to expand...


Of course you lied.  That is obvious.  Of course I pointed out the fallacy of many of your posts. And of course you are mischaracterizing what I wrote, subsituting "government" for "society."


----------



## hunarcy

G.T. said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was an instinct to.
> 
> A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)
Click to expand...


While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully.  I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way.  The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights!
> 
> I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.



So you've got government bestowing rights, other men bestowing rights, etc?  Do you need this explained to you in a certain way?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

If rights aren't innate, and man doesn't give the rights to other men, where does that leave us?


----------



## The Rabbi

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was an instinct to.
> 
> A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully.  I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way.  The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.
Click to expand...


That's not even close.  Hitler felt he was morally justified to wipe out Jews and Gypsies.  I dont think that really constitutes a right though.  Further you might have an instinct to kill someone who threatened you over the phone.  But you have no right to do so.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dr Grump said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the OP: No. As Oldschool has mentioned, who decides what a natural right is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People would have to figure it out, to make sure we are talking about the same principles:
> Comparing what concept each person means by rights, freedoms, and laws;
> and what "terms" they use since this can vary. We can believe in similar concepts,
> but use different terms or systems. Whatever principles we agree are naturally occurring among all humans, we may agree to identify those with "natural rights or laws."
> 
> Most of the interactions I find online are people stumbling or bumbling around in this process -- some people more aware of it, and some not at all. but in the process of sharing and comparing, we are essentially figuring out what are universal values and what are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My main sticking point in this debate though, is not about whether they exist outside of govt, it's whether they exist at all. I say, no.
Click to expand...


Dear Dr. Grump and also Rabbi:
Would it take another thread to go through all the possible universal principles or
natural laws you do or do not relate to or recognize as part of human nature?

I am very curious to know what you DO believe in.

Rabbi mentioned "instincts" which is along those lines.
Anything that could be called "natural rights" can also be
explained in terms of natural human "instincts" to respond
positively or negatively to certain things or events in society.

(I can list some more possible ideas here, or we could start a new thread,
so it doesn't bog this one down. Rabbi seemed to object to it going off topic.)


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights!
> 
> I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've got government bestowing rights, other men bestowing rights, etc?  Do you need this explained to you in a certain way?
Click to expand...


Is government a construct of men?


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> If rights aren't innate, and man doesn't give the rights to other men, where does that leave us?



In your case in a quandary.


----------



## Asclepias

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times.  When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies.  When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already."  This is the merely the last.  Of course he lied about what I wrote.  That is obvious.  Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident."  That it would need proving isn't even a question.
> It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid.  He isn't.  But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough.  Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants.  Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?
Click to expand...


Thats pretty much what I said many moons  ago.  No one can take away your right to fight for your life. It probably is the only naturally inherent right you have that no one can tinker with. You also have a right to think what you want to but that can be manipulated.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you maintain that other men do not grant you rights!
> 
> I do not have any clue where you two are coming from at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've got government bestowing rights, other men bestowing rights, etc?  Do you need this explained to you in a certain way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is government a construct of men?
Click to expand...


Obviously.  So is etiquette.  Your point?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Thanks for making my point, Rabbi.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> Thanks for making my point, Rabbi.



Which was?


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct



What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.

Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?

Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to 
seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?

I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.

But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what I said many moons  ago.  No one can take away your right to fight for your life. It probably is the only naturally inherent right you have that no one can tinker with. You also have a right to think what you want to but that can be manipulated.
Click to expand...


I've seen people's will to live and to fight beaten out of them.
Sometimes I wish it would happen to me so I would give up too!

What I haven't seen anyone able to force on someone else, no matter what,
* forcing someone to forgive
* forcing someone to change their beliefs
I don't even think God can do this by force.

God can orchestrate circumstances where the pressure is so great that people "choose or agree to let go," or ask for help to change or forgive where they can't on their own.
But it still has to be by free will or it does not really liberate the person from the pressure.

So whatever these laws of free will and reason are that are built into human nature or conscience,
not even God can break these rules, but people can only accept change in accordance with conscience.
It cannot be forced on us, or people rebel because of how our consciences are designed to defend our consent and free will.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
> and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.
> 
> Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?
> 
> Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to
> seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
> and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?
> 
> I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.
> 
> But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
> Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?
Click to expand...


Instinct!


----------



## G.T.

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, prior to philosophy, there was no right to defend your own life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was an instinct to.
> 
> A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully.  I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way.  The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.
Click to expand...


morals are a human construct also

so your therefore doesn't work


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
> and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.
> 
> Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?
> 
> Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to
> seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
> and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?
> 
> I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.
> 
> But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
> Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?
Click to expand...


Having an instinct does not prove having a Right. 

We want to live.
We are good natured. 

etc
etc
etc
etc
etc


That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

nailed it!


----------



## hunarcy

The Rabbi said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully.  I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way.  The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even close.  Hitler felt he was morally justified to wipe out Jews and Gypsies.  I dont think that really constitutes a right though.  Further you might have an instinct to kill someone who threatened you over the phone.  But you have no right to do so.
Click to expand...


That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection.  Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
> and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.
> 
> Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?
> 
> Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to
> seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
> and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?
> 
> I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.
> 
> But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
> Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instinct!
Click to expand...


Of course you're being facetious, but the answer is correct. 

The instinct does not prove the right. That's a pretty fantastical leap, I'd love to see it on paper some day. I know you cant do it, because all you do is juxtapose.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> nailed it!



I saw your post before I responded, you're a mark.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind)  originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?


----------



## G.T.

hunarcy said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully.  I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way.  The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even close.  Hitler felt he was morally justified to wipe out Jews and Gypsies.  I dont think that really constitutes a right though.  Further you might have an instinct to kill someone who threatened you over the phone.  But you have no right to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection.  Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?
Click to expand...


In what setting?

You'll always have the *instinct* to defend it. 

Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.


----------



## hunarcy

G.T. said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was an instinct to.
> 
> A right to, though? Based on what? (we just did this for 28pages, fyi)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully.  I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way.  The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> morals are a human construct also
> 
> so your therefore doesn't work
Click to expand...


The basic foundation of the argument is whether rights are inherent or artificial.  If you have a right to defend your life and had it prior to philosophy, then it's inherent.  In that case, philosophy's role is to explain why you have it, not create it.


----------



## hunarcy

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that natural rights don't exist.
> 
> But we might part somewhere on this, I'm not sure - but I believe in *basic rights *such as the right to life, pursue happiness, etc.
> 
> I believe they exist _BECAUSE_ we have philosophized them into existence, not because they were magically always there - - - - - but I do believe that they should be "considered" sacrosanct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
> and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.
> 
> Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?
> 
> Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to
> seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
> and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?
> 
> I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.
> 
> But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
> Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.
> 
> We want to live.
> We are good natured.
> 
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> 
> 
> That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.
Click to expand...


If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind)  originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?



Both, and the question is also irrelevant.


----------



## Asclepias

I just looked up right as a noun. There are no rights you have that are not granted to you by someone else. I.E. a governing body.

Right:


> a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.



I guess this definition also kills the phrase "natural rights".


----------



## The Rabbi

hunarcy said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you may have done this for 28 pages, apparently you failed to resolve it successfully.  I submit that a right is a morally justified reason to act in a certain way.  The instinct we have to self defense is morally justified, therefore it's a right and was one even before man invented philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even close.  Hitler felt he was morally justified to wipe out Jews and Gypsies.  I dont think that really constitutes a right though.  Further you might have an instinct to kill someone who threatened you over the phone.  But you have no right to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection.  Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?
Click to expand...


Refuting your argument by showing its absurdity is not deflection.
The answer to your question is, It depends.  IN America generally yes you do.  In Spain, no you dont.  In Vietnam I would doubt it.


----------



## G.T.

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
> and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.
> 
> Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?
> 
> Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to
> seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
> and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?
> 
> I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.
> 
> But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
> Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.
> 
> We want to live.
> We are good natured.
> 
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> 
> 
> That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.
Click to expand...


the ability to act = the right to act?

cool, bro


im able to take money from my mom's wallet on sundays
guess I automaticall have the right to since I have the ability to


----------



## The Rabbi

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about our impulses to respond positively to things we agree with and want by "free will or free choice"
> and to respond negatively when we run into conflict or opposition trying to force us against our will.
> 
> Is this reaction "philosophized into existence" by teaching or experience?
> 
> Or is it inherent in human nature or conscience to
> seek "pleasure, peace, or satisfaction" in doing or getting what we want
> and avoiding "fear, suffering, or pain" with what we do NOT want?
> 
> I know that the ASSOCIATIONS we have are socially conditioned.
> 
> But what about the "pleasure/pain" instinctive reaction itself?
> Isn't that "naturally occurring" and independent of external context that is relative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.
> 
> We want to live.
> We are good natured.
> 
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> 
> 
> That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.
Click to expand...


So I have the right to rape an attractive woman on the bus?  How cool is that??


----------



## hunarcy

G.T. said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even close.  Hitler felt he was morally justified to wipe out Jews and Gypsies.  I dont think that really constitutes a right though.  Further you might have an instinct to kill someone who threatened you over the phone.  But you have no right to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection.  Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what setting?
> 
> You'll always have the *instinct* to defend it.
> 
> Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.
Click to expand...


LOL!  So, you would be unable to defend your life until society grants you that right?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind)  originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, and the question is also irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.

Glad we could finally come to agreement.


----------



## hunarcy

The Rabbi said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.
> 
> We want to live.
> We are good natured.
> 
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> 
> 
> That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I have the right to rape an attractive woman on the bus?  How cool is that??
Click to expand...



LOL!  Ah, I'm in the hyperbolic absurdity zone?


----------



## The Rabbi

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection.  Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what setting?
> 
> You'll always have the *instinct* to defend it.
> 
> Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  So, you would be unable to defend your life until society grants you that right?
Click to expand...


No.  In the same way you are able to commit murder anywhere, any time.  Just a question of the consequences later.


----------



## G.T.

hunarcy said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a nice trip down your rabbit hole, but it is all deflection.  Do you or do you not have a right to defend your life if it is actually being threatened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what setting?
> 
> You'll always have the *instinct* to defend it.
> 
> Having the "right" to defend it is an abstract idea brought upon by human cohabitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  So, you would be unable to defend your life until society grants you that right?
Click to expand...


No, you'd be able to defend your life always. 

Having the "right" to do so has nothing to do with your ability to do so.


----------



## The Rabbi

hunarcy said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I have the right to rape an attractive woman on the bus?  How cool is that??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Ah, I'm in the hyperbolic absurdity zone?
Click to expand...


No, the absurdity is you positing that the ability to act on instincts constitute a right, when we have shown where that leads.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind)  originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, and the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
Click to expand...



Rights are a concept invented by humans.

Instincts are innate, therefore natural. 

Rights are not.


----------



## G.T.

I love how an instinct and your ability to act on said instinct became the definition of a right to hunarcy, lol you kill me bro.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both, and the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are a concept invented by humans.
> 
> Instincts are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Rights are not.
Click to expand...


innate by its very definition in this context is that the rights are constructs of the constitution of intellect derived from the mind. You're just playing jigsaw with definitions now. By that standard, they are innate, which also happens to mean existing as part of the basic nature of something.

It's all a game of semantics nonsense now.


----------



## G.T.

Nah, bro. Youre just inept at the idea of logically proving an assertion.

Its always going to circle around to rights being abstract, not factual. 

I have maintained that and everyone else trying to refute it logically has failed.

Pointing to instinct was the weakest attempt of them all.


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are a concept invented by humans.
> 
> Instincts are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Rights are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> innate by its very definition in this context is that the rights are constructs of the constitution of intellect derived from the mind. You're just playing jigsaw with definitions now. By that standard, they are innate, which also happens to mean existing as part of the basic nature of something.
> 
> It's all a game of semantics nonsense now.
Click to expand...


Your position is that rights are constructs derived from the mind?  On that reading anything a person chooses could be a right.
Sounds like a fail to me.


----------



## dblack

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind)  originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, and the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
Click to expand...


Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both, and the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
Click to expand...


I was being nice, but his comment was dumb. 

It breaks down to every human idea or thought being natural. It's stupid.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both, and the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
Click to expand...




Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
Click to expand...

He agreed to no such thing.


----------



## G.T.

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He agreed to no such thing.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I can agree that we're any longer speaking with humans.


----------



## dblack

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
Click to expand...


The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The Rabbi said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He agreed to no such thing.
Click to expand...




TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the natural rights (besides that of they do not exist, so for those types just say rights in your mind)  originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, and the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
Click to expand...


Sure! Sure!


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it's not irrelevant. As that is by it's very definition, innate. Therefore, part of the basic nature of something. in this case humans. Therefore, you agree the rights are innate, therefore natural.
> 
> Glad we could finally come to agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
Click to expand...




I just drew an alien with a football shaped head. 

Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?

no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience. 

that was really knuckle headed.

like, REALLY.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.
Click to expand...


That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.
Click to expand...


Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant. 

You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bored yet? Forehead bloody and raw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just drew an alien with a football shaped head.
> 
> Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?
> 
> no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience.
> 
> that was really knuckle headed.
> 
> like, REALLY.
Click to expand...


If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!
Click to expand...


I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just drew an alien with a football shaped head.
> 
> Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?
> 
> no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience.
> 
> that was really knuckle headed.
> 
> like, REALLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.
Click to expand...


My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence. 

Your point was dumb. Get over it.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.
Click to expand...


Yea, come back when you have something relevant to say on the origin of rights.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant.
> 
> You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, come back when you have something relevant to say on the origin of rights.
Click to expand...


Oh, I haven't gone anywhere.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, come back when you have something relevant to say on the origin of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I haven't gone anywhere.
Click to expand...


Word well, start a fire I brought some mallows. And don't fart on the sofa!


----------



## The Rabbi

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.
Click to expand...


I'm not flip flopping at all.  I am pretty clear on it.  What is unclear is that it does not fit in with your binary view of the universe.  Thus the trouble you are having processing it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just drew an alien with a football shaped head.
> 
> Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?
> 
> no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience.
> 
> that was really knuckle headed.
> 
> like, REALLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence.
> 
> Your point was dumb. Get over it.
Click to expand...


that's because your "invention, has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's not universal, it isn't egalitarian. But my position isn't "dumb". Because what I posited and what you replied to is the very definition of innate. You're simply being stubborn about accepting anything except your own notion. And you'll change words, perhaps even the meaning of them at times, in discourse in order to maintain it. Such as, yeah, rights are X Y Z. Then when pressed, you fall back on instinct.

It's boring. Believe whatever you want, brosif.


Good day!


----------



## dblack

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.
Click to expand...


Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence.
> 
> Your point was dumb. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's because your "invention, has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's not universal, it isn't egalitarian. But my position isn't "dumb". Because what I posited and what you replied to is the very definition of innate. You're simply being stubborn about accepting anything except your own notion. And you'll change words, perhaps even the meaning of them at times, in discourse in order to maintain it. Such as, yeah, rights are X Y Z. Then when pressed, you fall back on instinct.
> 
> It's boring. Believe whatever you want, brosif.
> 
> 
> Good day!
Click to expand...


I didn't redefine anything to mean instinct.

That was done by other posters, in attempting to conflate rights with instincts. 

also this serves as further proof that you lack the reading comprehension to have an in depth conversation, and it's def best you leave for the.......

Wait, you're still here yet saying goodbye!

I know that's at least 10 times you've done that.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only really interesting bit is _why_ it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.
Click to expand...


Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.
Click to expand...


That old thing? Srsly?

Anyway... would y'all love to hear Jefferson's take on all this? I suspect he'd have quite the belly laugh. 

It would be a fascinating conversation to be sure. First question for me - however uncomfortable, would have to be - Dude, slavery? WTF???


----------



## The Rabbi

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence.
> 
> Your point was dumb. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's because your "invention, has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's not universal, it isn't egalitarian. But my position isn't "dumb". Because what I posited and what you replied to is the very definition of innate. You're simply being stubborn about accepting anything except your own notion. And you'll change words, perhaps even the meaning of them at times, in discourse in order to maintain it. Such as, yeah, rights are X Y Z. Then when pressed, you fall back on instinct.
> 
> It's boring. Believe whatever you want, brosif.
> 
> 
> Good day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't redefine anything to mean instinct.
> 
> That was done by other posters, in attempting to conflate rights with instincts.
> 
> also this serves as further proof that you lack the reading comprehension to have an in depth conversation, and it's def best you leave for the.......
> 
> Wait, you're still here yet saying goodbye!
> 
> I know that's at least 10 times you've done that.
Click to expand...

I lost count so thanks.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That old thing? Srsly?
> 
> Anyway... would y'all love to hear Jefferson's take on all this? I suspect he'd have quite the belly laugh.
> 
> It would be a fascinating conversation to be sure. First question for me - however uncomfortable, would have to be - Dude, slavery? WTF???
Click to expand...


Yea, I don't know how an enlightened or supposedly enlightened being who is attempting to dictate the human condition to society doesn't make a 

HUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE KABOOOOOOM STINK

about slavery.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That old thing? Srsly?
> 
> Anyway... would y'all love to hear Jefferson's take on all this? I suspect he'd have quite the belly laugh.
> 
> It would be a fascinating conversation to be sure. First question for me - however uncomfortable, would have to be - Dude, slavery? WTF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, I don't know how an enlightened or supposedly enlightened being who is attempting to dictate the human condition to society doesn't make a
> 
> HUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE KABOOOOOOM STINK
> 
> about slavery.
Click to expand...


It's a fascinating question (sorry 'bout the off-topic). But I visited Moniticello a couple of years ago, and couldn't quite get it out of mind. How someone who did so much to advance the ideas that would eventually kill the practice of slavery, actively indulged it. 

I suppose there's context and social norms etc... Maybe 200 years from now, eating animals will be outlawed and those of us eating meat now will be viewed, historically, as barbaric. Certainly some of the arguments for the vegetarian diet make sense, even if I can't bring myself to commit to them. Maybe that's where Jefferson and his kin were at the time.


----------



## G.T.

no man was ever perfect and no man was even close


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cant secure any rights you think you should have unless there is a form of government.  You make up what rights you want and band together with like minded people to protect those rights. The only real right you have is to fight for your life. No one can take that from you but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, I can secure my rights without the government. I do not need the government to tell when to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually you cant. You need help.  All I have to do is come enforce my will on you and take your rights. For that matter any predator can come and take away your supposed right to live. What rights do you have if you are dead?  Are you having trouble seeing?  Where did I say you need the government to tell you when to think?
Click to expand...


I need the government's help to think? Since when?

Your belief that the pyramids were built by aliens is affecting your judgement in other areas. Seek help.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be.  Survival of the fittest
> 
> Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a very good analogy.  There is no "society"  native to Anarctica - the only people there are researchers and minimal commercial activity - very minimal,  and yes there is Government of sorts -n extension ofthe Governments that sent people there to conduct research
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you think the fact that people come from different countries proves that governments follow them around.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> No - do you see the flaw in yours ?  where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from  , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being alive = / = possessing a right to be alive
> murdering someone = / = possessing a right to murder someone
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, all of it.
> Rights are obviously alienable.  People are deprived of rights all the time.  Rights do not exist absent government.
> Did you read any part of this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are not something that man was born with, despite the use of the grandiose and assumpive term "inalienable"  by Tommy Jefferson - your rights under the Constitution could disappear in a heartbeat.  Such as the Asians who were interned in WWII on the west coast,  the Native Americans who were beaten off their lands - although they weren't considered "Men"- they were sub-human savages [as per the thinking of the day].  The African Americans - who never really had them till the last half Century and so on ...
> 
> Government , as it was intended "*Of the people, by the people and for the people*"  is the only guarantoor of those so called "inalienable" rights - and it is far from perfect in its  duties of guranteeing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the problem with the entire conversation.
> 
> The only fallback people have - when they think this ALLLLlll the way through - is to say that men are born with certain inalienable rights because....................................men said so.
> 
> There has been no logically proven foundation otherwise, save for very weak-willed attempts such as "your instincts tell you to stay alive, thus, you have a RIGHT!" /derp
Click to expand...


Funny, I don' recall ever saying that. In fact, I specifically pointed out that animals exhibit a sense of right and wrong, and are even willing to sacrifice themselves to save others, which implies that all those highfalutin concepts you insist exist only in the minds of people actually exist outside the minds of people. Funny how not one person even addressed that, isn't it?

Until you show me how the government, or anyone else, can take my life and give it to someone else, I have an unalienable right to life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

editec said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of one&#8217;s rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republic&#8217;s citizens&#8217; civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> Please list those "innate rights" that you believe  "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."
> 
> I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.
> 
> What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?
> 
> Every innate right ceases when you die.
> 
> Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.
> 
> Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither *taken* nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "
Click to expand...


You have a hard time following simple economics, why would you expect to be able to follow philosophical concepts? To make it simple, until someone can show me how the government can give anyone life, you have no argument that government grants rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your previous question was "if rights dont exist without the government how can a person maintain their (sic) life without government."
> How is that subject to a yes or no answer?
> 
> I sense you aren't doing well in this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My previous question to you was, "Aren't you the guy who says rights don't exist without the government?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No actually it wasn't.  Look at the posts.
> And no, rights dont exist without a government. Especially since all of the rights mentioned deal with things governments cannot outlaw.
Click to expand...


I did, you quoted my response to another poster.

Show me a single example of any government giving life to anyone and you will be able to make a case that the government grants rights. Until then, you are just going to be arguing in circles, unable to ever prove that you actually have a point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, all of it.
> Rights are obviously alienable.  People are deprived of rights all the time.  Rights do not exist absent government.
> Did you read any part of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you? Try again. On this, Clayton is 100% right.
Click to expand...

Which is such a rare event that it deserves special notice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clayton,
> 
> Please list those "innate rights" that you believe  "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."
> 
> I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.
> 
> What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?
> 
> Every innate right ceases when you die.
> 
> Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.
> 
> Shall I go on?
> 
> 
> Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither *taken* nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the distinction between 'taken' and 'violated'. Government can't _separate_ from you your ability to think and act for yourself (which is really all we're talking about). They can, anyone can, _violate_ your rights at anytime by blocking your actions. The point isn't that there's something magical that prevents others from interfering with your inalienable rights, just that they preexist any agency that we create to protect them. We have perfect freedom even when (indeed, only when) we're completely alone. It isn't until we interact with others that our freedom is at risk.
> 
> It's a philosophical point, without obvious practical application. Which is likely why it confounds so many people. But it does have significance, especially when you consider different alternatives (to government) for securing freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no logical proof, or deductive reasoning, behind our rights being inborn and inalienable. Therefore, it is not philosophical at all, it's pseudo intellect.
Click to expand...


Cognito ergo sum.

Damn, it seems that the logical argument and deductive reasoning behind natural rights actually predates the people you claim invented the concept.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is tough, I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the _protection_ of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.
> 
> For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.
> 
> The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.
Click to expand...


No, the problem is you are missing the entire concept of what unalienable rights are. Unalienable means they cannot be taken or transferred. All you have to do to prove that these rights are not unalienable is provide examples of any person or agent taking these rights and granting them to another person. If you are correct, and they don't actually exist, prove it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a circular argument.
> 
> I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.
> 
> The argument is *where do inborn rights come from*.
> 
> The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.
> 
> The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.
> 
> Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."
> 
> That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).
> 
> Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have the inalienable "freedom" to live, either. If you can logically deduce why it's inalienable, I am all ears.
> 
> Problem is, it cannot be logically deduced.
> 
> That is the sticking point. That means that the thinking is inept, and the concept is incorrect.
> 
> When it can be proven, it will enshrine its viability in the halls of man foreva and eva and eva, but it cannot.
> 
> And stop conflating myself and the rabbi with the whole "the government" conversation. THAT WASNT ME.
Click to expand...


Because you cannot give it to anyone else.

End of argument, or are you going to insist that unalienable doesn't mean "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred?"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've substituted one word for another.  That isn't an argument.
> Where do inalienable freedoms come from? Do I have an inalienable freedom to steal your stuff?  To kill you if I dont like you?  To kill you if I think you're a threat?  Is there an inalenienable freedom to wear a hat?  To speak French?  To advocate genocide?  To advocate assasinations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For most of human history, no one had freedom of any kind.  How can there be an inalienable freedom when it was clearly alienated from most of humanity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they aren't _alienated_. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
> Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.
Click to expand...


We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> There is no such thing as a natural right.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532



Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a natural right.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## emilynghiem

No, these two are not related in that way, I agree, and that is NOT my point.

My point is that the SAME principles that others express in terms of "natural rights"
CAN be explained in other terms that are relevant to you. That is what I mean
by being universal to all people.

If you believe in instinct, it can be explained in those terms.
If not, what terms do you use for human behavior patterns.

No, we DON'T have to believe in or prove terms of moral or rights
to AGREE on basic patterns or rules of human behavior.

Do you believe there are rules or laws of psychology that govern human behavior?
Those can be used to describe the same "mechanism".

It's the PRINCIPLES or CONCEPTS that are universal.
Of course we are not all going to agree how to express them 
because every person I know sees it differently!



G.T. said:


> Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.
> 
> We want to live.
> We are good natured.
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> etc
> 
> That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.



I will make a separate thread to list different applications or examples
of these patterns of behavior, and ask other people also.

We may never be able to prove, and don't have to agree,
if these are internal or external, self-existent or man-made.

As long as we find terms and rules WE AGREE describe what we believe is
effective and constructive to follow in society, that is what is important in practice.

What are the principles we agree on?
None of the theory is as important as agreeing how to operate in real life.

Regarding universal laws: I believe all people's views or systems can "align" because the core concepts are UNIVERSAL even where our perceptions or terms are diverse, relative and unique to each person. We still follow the same basic patterns because we're human.


----------



## gnarlylove

Natural rights do not exist intrinsically. They are inventive descriptions to aide in equal treatment of human beings. It's akin to "law." Law is a rigid set of precepts that can be changed.

Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.

The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.

So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights. 

Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.

But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.

Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.

Furthermore, there are[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Moral-Cognition-Linguistic-Cognitive/dp/0521855780"] studies being enumerated[/ame] that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hard-wired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to fairly treat each other without having to sign the UN Declaration. But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way. It is up to the people to keep fighting for just treatment and for us to keep expanding the parameters where rights apply, including economic rights or changing the whole concept altogether. One way to look at it is that we are held back by our narrow understanding of rights. We need to step back further and examine what a human life is and what is must have in order to be and basing a society on these findings, not on the profit motive that annihilates equal treatment.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Natural rights do not exist intrinsically. They are inventive descriptions to aide in equal treatment of human beings. It's akin to "law." Law is a rigid set of precepts that can be changed.
> 
> Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.
> 
> The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.
> 
> So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights.
> 
> Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.
> 
> But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.
> 
> Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.
> 
> Furthermore, there are studies being enumerated that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hardwired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to treat each other. But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way.



Poop


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Ah, a deterministic argument. yuk yuk yuk


----------



## emilynghiem

hunarcy said:


> If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.



Don't you mean freedom?
Hypothetically you have free will to do something within your ability.

As for rights, by natural laws they come with responsibilities.
This is like the natural law of justice or karma, cause and effect, the reactions to your actions.

So if you abuse your freedom to violate someone else's right or freedoms, you will be protested or petitioned to redress grievances or pay restitution to resolve the conflict.


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've substituted one word for another.  That isn't an argument.
> Where do inalienable freedoms come from? Do I have an inalienable freedom to steal your stuff?  To kill you if I dont like you?  To kill you if I think you're a threat?  Is there an inalenienable freedom to wear a hat?  To speak French?  To advocate genocide?  To advocate assasinations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For most of human history, no one had freedom of any kind.  How can there be an inalienable freedom when it was clearly alienated from most of humanity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they aren't _alienated_. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
> Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.
Click to expand...


Yes, the slaves have rights as the slaves do today.
Just because we don't fight for equal rights of slaves in Asia
as we do workers in America, doesn't mean rights aren't being violated.

Because of economic structures dependent on slave labor right now,
India could not even ban child labor or more children would starve to death
than would be saved. Human rights are violated on a daily basis.
Doesn't mean they don't exist.

In practice, the defense of human rights depends on our ability to set up alternatives.

We need to convert more of the factories into schools, to create sustainable
jobs for the women and children in education, to break the cycle of poverty
while still letting the students work, to keep their economy going, but
manage these programs where nobody is being abused.

There are more programs today doing more to eradicate poverty
and trafficking, but the demand is still greater. So we still have slavery
in the meantime, where these people do not have EQUAL ACCESS
to resources and programs to meet equal standards on human rights.

and yes, slavery has been going on a long time.
you can see the progression to eradicate poverty to reduce war, oppression and crime,
but you can see we are not there yet. people are not yet treated as equal
because we don't have equal access to sustainable systems of education and services.


----------



## emilynghiem

yes and no.
man did not create human nature and the rules we respond to.
yes we did create the expression of these patterns and principles as statutory laws.
but the concepts behind them, and why they work to govern people
are not just because people are taught or conditioned to follow them.

it is because the laws follow the principles of human nature.
it is like cutting hair to follow the natural pattern that it grows in.

if you go against the grain, then people do not follow.

so it is with free will and the natural desire to petition to redress grievances
when people feel our interests or consent are being imposed upon or excluded.

systems of laws work where the follow the natural patterns of human behavior.
these laws and religions are expressions of the principles so we can agree what procedures to follow; but we did not make up the pscyhology of human behavior,
and what works and what does not work with people. We are just trying to "figure it
out" and perfect our models so we can manage our populations on a sustainable basis.



gnarlylove said:


> Natural rights do not exist intrinsically. They are inventive descriptions to aide in equal treatment of human beings. It's akin to "law." Law is a rigid set of precepts that can be changed.
> 
> Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.
> 
> The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.
> 
> So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights.
> 
> Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.
> 
> But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.
> 
> Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.
> 
> Furthermore, there are studies being enumerated that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hard-wired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to fairly treat each other without having to sign the UN Declaration.
> 
> But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way. It is up to the people to keep fighting for just treatment and for us to keep expanding the parameters where rights apply, including economic rights or changing the whole concept altogether. One way to look at it is that we are held back by our narrow understanding of rights. We need to step back further and examine what a human life is and what is must have in order to be and basing a society on these findings, not on the profit motive that annihilates equal treatment.



it's not just the profit motive but the relationships between people and groups.

if we do not "trust or forgive" certain people or groups, the relationship becomes competitive instead of collaborative.

also look up the difference between scarcity mentality and abundance mentality.
people who operate by fear and negative or divisive mindsets
are less effective than people who work in positive, inclusive ways.

this mentality makes the difference between corruption and conflicts in situations
or pooling resources and teamwork together to solve problems instead.

it isn't the system to blame but what approach people take, if it is divisive,
negative, or unforgiving 

any system can be made to work, it depends on the people and what they do with it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctity is a human philosophical concept.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Saw your edit.
> That we have free will does not speak to the origin of our rights, it only speaks to our desire for said rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, G.T.  The first version confounded the point, expressing something I didn't intend.
> 
> However, the principle of the sanctity of human life is not a mere construct of culture.  You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic metaphysical presupposition.  Good luck proving that in the face of the classical laws of logic.
> 
> The principle of the sanctity of human life is embedded in God Himself, who is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities, not the stuff of some cultural construct.
> 
> And I already substantiated _my_ premise here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863493
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot assert a God and have a conversation with me.
> 
> I'm an agnostic and not going down that road.
> 
> I can prove that it's at least *currently* a construct of human culture quite simply by pointing to the fact that without proof of a deity, it's the ONLY other place it could come from. And humans have not proven a deity. And I won't have a God debate.
Click to expand...


Sorry for the delay.  I had to take care of some things.

*The irrelevancies of supposed social constructs vs.  the realities of self-preservation and self-interest*

Uh, _currently_, the reigning opinion in the epistemological literature, due to recent advances in the neurological sciences, asserts that along with a universal baseline of geometric-logistic predilections:  humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the human brain. The traditional, Aristotelian blank slate of Empiricism, at least in this respect, is dead.

But there's no need to linger on that as the imperatives of natural law are extrapolated from the self-evident exigencies of human nature and historical experience.  

In short, I'm not raising "a God debate."  You missed my point entirely.

My contention has absolutely nothing to do with any empirical proof of God's existence.  There is no such thing anyway, beyond what is, nevertheless, a very powerful teleological argument backed by a very powerful ontological argument. 

I have no interest in proving the existence of God to anyone or getting into any theological discussion as such.  I don't have to prove Gods' existence in order to demonstrate the actualities of innate, inalienable rights, as I have already demonstrated in the above . . . 

*here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367 

. . . and again here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

This is the point that matters, once again and more specifically:  You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.  Good luck providing a credible argument in the face of the law of contradiction for that.

Like Rabbi, whose mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door precisely because he's never gotten beyond the first principles of things in his entire life, you have yet to demonstrate the validity of your underlying presupposition that certain rights or principles are merely the stuff of social constructs.*

Any one can say that, but merely stating that as if it were an argument, rather than what it is, a bald statement hanging in midair, is tiresome.

What's this argument of yours that demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperative at some level of being or another?

*My observations concerning the realities of human conduct and interaction, and the consequences thereof are concrete, not abstract.  Your claim, in the face of these things, that certain rights and principles are merely social constructs is sheer abstraction.  It's not the other way around at all and never has been!*

*Pragmatically, what difference does it make whether these things be ontologically real in the sense that they be ultimately bottomed on a transcendent authority or not . . . in the face of the fact that, due to the inescapable exigencies and consequences related to self-preservation and self-interest, human beings throughout history have conducted themselves as if they were?

For the most part, the only persons around here making hay over an abstract distinction that makes absolutely no difference in terms of real-world actions and outcomes are you and Rabbi.*

Frankly, beyond establishing a baseline for the sake of the academics of the matter, *I don't give a hoot about such abstractions in the face of the practical demands of self-preservation and self-interest, on which the rudiments of natural law and natural rights are immediately predicated*, but since you guys insist that this distinction is so important. . . .

*Once again, what is this argument of yours which demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?*


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> Poop



I had a hunch that you had poop on your screen and all my posts were truncated by the smeared poop. It also explains why half your posts are, well, poop. JK! Everybody poops!


----------



## gnarlylove

My unabridged post above was not intended to say we are a_ tabula rasa_ as Locke called it, a blank slate. Some call it a behaviorist model or determinism.

I was merely denoting our understanding of natural rights is not in direct correspondence with our nature, however, they do represent parts of our nature. It is foolish to think humanity can achieve complete knowledge of our innate structures or nature. The best we have are external formulations (language) that arise due to internal principles of our biological system that are programmed, not conscious decisions. This is very different than saying we precisely know what all our internal principles are. I tried to make this known by referencing moral case studies that attempt to draw out our innate structure of moral behavior that is cross cultural. In doing such studies we can confirm what are universal behaviors and thus approximate their principle. From these facts we can extrapolate natural rights.


----------



## emilynghiem

gnarlylove said:


> My unabridged post above was not intended to say we are a_ tabula rasa_ as Locke called it, a blank slate. Some call it a behaviorist model or determinism.
> 
> I was merely denoting our understanding of natural rights is not in direct correspondence with our nature, however, they do represent parts of our nature. It is foolish to think humanity can achieve complete knowledge of our innate structures or nature. The best we have are external formulations (language) that arise due to internal principles of our biological system that are programmed, not conscious decisions. This is very different than saying we precisely know what all our internal principles are. I tried to make this known by referencing moral case studies that attempt to draw out our innate structure of moral behavior that is cross cultural. In doing such studies we can confirm what are universal behaviors and thus approximate their principle. From these facts we can extrapolate natural rights.



I don't think we need to get ALL the factors going on, but we can know enough to manage it effectively.

We can know the overall system of karma or cause and effect carried from past generations, and understand the healing and recovery process. 

We don't have to know each and every instance of every factor and reason affecting people, to follow and facilitate the process of reaching peace in order to get there.

I do believe we can establish a central, unified understanding of the process of human nature in making decisions and keeping relations and institutions in harmonic balance.

I don't think we have to know everything to do this, I agree that is impossible.
But it's not like we can't figure out how human psychology works, and resolve most issues.

It's like can't cure all instances of addiction, but we can figure out how healing works and apply that to more situations earlier on to improve the rates of recovery and prevention.


----------



## The Rabbi

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Yes.
> 
> Because they aren't _alienated_. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
> Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.
Click to expand...


Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
> Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
Click to expand...


Poop.


----------



## The Rabbi

dblack said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poop.
Click to expand...


About the level of discourse this has come to.  I think it's time the adults left the room.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you see infringing as?  What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the difference between being taxed on wages and not being paid at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the difference between a cheeseburger and a toilet bowl?
> Why don't you answer the question instead of making stupid comparisons?
Click to expand...


Now, I know you're not going to answer me, but. . . .

*Rabbi*, the point that *Quantum* is making is profound, one that ultimately goes to the difference between reckoning innate rights to be absolute or subject to revision.  

The Sixteenth Amendment, for example, is an abomination.  As I have said before, the Constitution is not perfect and should have contained a clause enumerating a handful of things that it could never be amended to allow.  By the way, such a motion was discussed at the constitutional convention, and one of the things that a number a the delegates wanted at the top of that list was the prohibition of ever allowing the federal government to directly tax income.  If only I had a time machine.  I'd got back and show them the headlines regarding our out-of-control entitlement state and our $17-trillion national debt.  

Mere freedoms are negotiable.

Inalienable rights are not.

Hence, the inherent contradiction of *dblack's* assertion in which he reckons innate rights to be inalienable, yet not sacrosanct at the same time.  

Inalienable, sacrosanct, absolute, inviolable:  these terms all carry the same meaning!  If innate rights are not sacrosanct, they are negotiable and inevitably subject to the arbitrary whims of the collective.  They're subject to being reduced to mere civil rights or voted out of existence altogether via a democratic majority.

When Jefferson said inalienable, he meant inalienable, sacrosanct, absolute, inviolable.  Period.  End of discussion.   The Framers, who wisely understood, like Locke and Sidney before them, that human nature was inherently corrupt, did not erect a democracy, but a democratic republic of explicitly limited powers relative to the paramount concerns of the  inalienable rights of man, *which are, by the way, directly related to the construct of individual liberty in terms of the prerogatives of free-association and private property!

You are mistaken.  Individual liberty is the heart and soul of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law.  

The Declaration of Independence is the annotated version of Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government and Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government.  No Hobbes or Rousseau there.   *

Of course, you assert no discernible absolutes at all in this regard, which makes your position, as far as upholding liberty goes, even more tenuous:  an arbitrary, fuzzy-wuzzy arrangement between the supposed social constructs of human culture and the political rights afforded by civil government. 

Your Hamiltonian conservatism is showing.  You might want to zip that up.


----------



## dblack

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the level of discourse this has come to.  I think it's time the adults left the room.
Click to expand...


Heh.... I guess that means there's no hope you're leaving, eh?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the level of discourse this has come to.  I think it's time the adults left the room.
Click to expand...


Well, that wouldn't be you given the fit you threw after the "babbling nonsense"  episode . . . and making a report.  You do recall the first time this issue came up between you and me when I first came to this board.  You blindsighted me in the same way and then ran, as you have here.  Anytime you want to engage the tough arguments, just click on my statists from this thread.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hence, the inherent contradiction of *dblack's* assertion in which he reckons innate rights to be inalienable, yet not sacrosanct at the same time.
> 
> Inalienable, sacrosanct, absolute, inviolable:  these terms all carry the same meaning!



Nope.


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
> Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
Click to expand...


Yes, correct I agree.
Freedom and Rights are different.

The same natural laws that describe the balance in human relations
between freedom and peace to maintain justice,
include BOTH principles of freedoms and rights to describe these relations.

Of course they are not the same.
But they are both concepts within the same set of rules or patterns
governing human behavior that we are trying to discuss.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Rabbi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
> 
> That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of ones rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.
> 
> And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.
> 
> This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republics citizens civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense, all of it.
> Rights are obviously alienable.  People are deprived of rights all the time.  Rights do not exist absent government.
> Did you read any part of this thread?
Click to expand...


LOL!  Your obtuseness knows no bounds.  Whether you think innate rights actually exist or not, whether you believe there actually exists any rights that are inalienable or not, Jones' summary of the founding sociopolitical philosophy of our nation and the subsequent formulations of our constitutional Republic relative to the Lockean construct of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof are academically and empirically demonstrable facts of historical reality!  Typically, the only boneheads who deny this are leftists.

When you wrote, "Nonsense, all of it", did you really mean _all of it_ or just the part about the actuality of inalienable rights in and of themselves?  That was a bit careless of you.  Yes?  Might we expect a clarification from you for the sake of historical accuracy?    

*Has he read any part of this thread, you ask.  Have you?

You've been utterly routed on every point, and you are decidedly in the minority here.*

On the other hand, given the frequency of Jones' reckless handling of case law and the fact that he doesn't universally extend the principles of the Republic to orthodox Jews and Christians (public accommodation claptrap in the face of homofascism, for example) or comprehensively grasp these principles beyond this purely academic rendition of them:  the fact that I am compelled to agree with him for once is really quite astonishing. 

*Shudder*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, correct I agree.
> Freedom and Rights are different.
> 
> The same natural laws that describe the balance in human relations
> between freedom and peace to maintain justice,
> include BOTH principles of freedoms and rights to describe these relations.
> 
> Of course they are not the same.
> But they are both concepts within the same set of rules or patterns
> governing human behavior that we are trying to discuss.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  You're correct, and Rabbi gets this much right, of course.  But it's all academic for him because he refuses to engage the themes and principles of _real_ natural law from _its_ actual premises.  

Further clarification for those who still may not see it.

Free will is merely an inherent fact of sentient life.  It falls under the header of innate freedoms, not innate rights, let alone inalienable rights.  It is the impetuous of exercising rights, or it can be the impetuous of excising tyranny.  Volition.  Choice.  Obviously, while one may will to take another's life, liberty or property sans any provocation, one cannot do so legitimately.  Free will and rights are categorically different things, though, as you rightfully point out, they both reside within the same realm of things.

What's funny about that is that Rabbi correctly apprehends the difference, yet he absurdly pooh-poohs the essence of their connection with regard to the incontrovertible fact that the mutual obligations of morality is a central and indispensable theme in natural law.  Again, it's the same error of confounding his personal beliefs with the academic, empirically demonstrable facts concerning the historical content of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law.

Rabbi habitually argues against things he doesn't perfectly understand or accurately portray.  Bad faith.

It's not right.  It's not decent.  It's cheating.


----------



## Listening

Good Grief...

You  guys fill up pages in a hurry !!!

I can't follow this the way I would like and I am the OP.  I've tried to scan as much as I can and I am seeing some very interesting discussion.

Thanks for the efforts from all of you.


----------



## Listening

The Rabbi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions".  Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing.  I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.
> 
> The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.
> 
> As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.
> 
> On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps.  Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences.  In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom.  So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.
> 
> However, that is really a stretch to me.  He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them.  That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.
Click to expand...


It is pretty clear to me that this is where some concrete examples would be meaningful.  I understand your point of view and tend to index that way myself.  However, I also understand the other side to an extent.  The only question in my mind is if it is worth worrying about the differences.

As I said earlier, if we believe rights come from God, then our accountability is one thing.  If we believe they come from the government, then it is something else.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, the inherent contradiction of *dblack's* assertion in which he reckons innate rights to be inalienable, yet not sacrosanct at the same time.
> 
> Inalienable, sacrosanct, absolute, inviolable:  these terms all carry the same meaning!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...


But, dblack, like I said, it's the difference between mobocracy, er, democracy and republicanism.  You're confounding the innate freedoms that are limited _with_ the inalienable rights that are promoted within the confines of a legitimate social contract under the state of civil government.  This does not mean that conflicts won't arise, for example, like the existential threats to inalienable rights posed by ObamaCare.

Ultimately, it's the imposition of innate freedoms _of some_ in the name of civil rights that is the ever-present threat to the inalienable rights _of others_.  

Now say, _yes_, because you know I'm right; after all, how can something be inalienable, as you concede, and not be sacrosanct at the same time?  Come on!  That's manifestly contradictory, and the only reason you uttered that, I suspect, is because you conceded something to Rabbi that you never should have conceded to him in the first place.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Well, natural rights cannot be guaranteed by government. That's one thing. It is a person's responsibility to ensure their own natural rights. 

"The United States Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself."

-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a natural right.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
Click to expand...


Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .


----------



## Katzndogz

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That old thing? Srsly?
> 
> Anyway... would y'all love to hear Jefferson's take on all this? I suspect he'd have quite the belly laugh.
> 
> It would be a fascinating conversation to be sure. First question for me - however uncomfortable, would have to be - Dude, slavery? WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I don't know how an enlightened or supposedly enlightened being who is attempting to dictate the human condition to society doesn't make a
> 
> HUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE KABOOOOOOM STINK
> 
> about slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fascinating question (sorry 'bout the off-topic). But I visited Moniticello a couple of years ago, and couldn't quite get it out of mind. How someone who did so much to advance the ideas that would eventually kill the practice of slavery, actively indulged it.
> 
> I suppose there's context and social norms etc... Maybe 200 years from now, eating animals will be outlawed and those of us eating meat now will be viewed, historically, as barbaric. Certainly some of the arguments for the vegetarian diet make sense, even if I can't bring myself to commit to them. Maybe that's where Jefferson and his kin were at the time.
Click to expand...


The industrial revolution hadn't happened yet.  Slavery was an established institution and had been for thousands of years.  Even someone opposed to slavery couldn't find something to replace it.  Slavery couldn't end until the concept of using slaves for menial labor ended.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblacks position that inalienable rights exist has no framework. He has no noncircular justification for them. Do you reference God, dblack?

They sound good in order to protect private property and individual desire but they are purely subjective opinions (that happen to be held by an overwhelming majority so it fools you into universality). The fact that you pick and choose what rights people have demonstrates you're not using reason, rather you are rationalizing your massively hackneyed ideology that emphasizes private everything. So naturally you think rights sound good when they free one up to do nothing, having nill responsibility. That's why you think "rights to life" (e.g. right to health care) makes no sense....because they are "freedoms to something" (like the right to exist) rather than "freedoms from something." You think you can pick and choose. But without one, you cannot have the other. Life is the need for food, health care etc. Without those a person is not existing in society but is treated as an animal. Natural rights are about civility, society and yet you refuse to ideologically grant certain rights because you think life does not entail the right to life (the right to food etc.).

Sadly your massive head trauma sustained months back has left you incapable of carrying a conversation deeply rooted in reality. You prefer fantasy and ideology over reality and refuse to believe anything can contradict your highly deficient worldview. No one can work with such a hackneyed trial-version philosopher where you expire beyond your programmed set of beliefs and shut down upon fundamental demurs. Nothing personal, just describing your behavior as I've seen it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
> Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history.  If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, you were wrong, the debate has always centered around free will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a natural right.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
Click to expand...


Your argument might make more sense if you actually addressed my replies to your posts rather than throwing out an insult when I challenge another poster to actually back up his claims. On the other hand, doing it this way does relieve you of the requirement of actually thinking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Katzndogz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I don't know how an enlightened or supposedly enlightened being who is attempting to dictate the human condition to society doesn't make a
> 
> HUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE KABOOOOOOM STINK
> 
> about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fascinating question (sorry 'bout the off-topic). But I visited Moniticello a couple of years ago, and couldn't quite get it out of mind. How someone who did so much to advance the ideas that would eventually kill the practice of slavery, actively indulged it.
> 
> I suppose there's context and social norms etc... Maybe 200 years from now, eating animals will be outlawed and those of us eating meat now will be viewed, historically, as barbaric. Certainly some of the arguments for the vegetarian diet make sense, even if I can't bring myself to commit to them. Maybe that's where Jefferson and his kin were at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The industrial revolution hadn't happened yet.  Slavery was an established institution and had been for thousands of years.  Even someone opposed to slavery couldn't find something to replace it.  Slavery couldn't end until the concept of using slaves for menial labor ended.
Click to expand...


Slavery has never been economically feasible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> dblacks position that inalienable rights exist has no framework. He has no noncircular justification for them. Do you reference God, dblack?



The framework is that they come from nature. Unless you are tryng to insist that God is nature there is no real need to bring Him into the discussion.



gnarlylove said:


> They sound good in order to protect private property and individual desire but they are purely subjective opinions (that happen to be held by an overwhelming majority so it fools you into universality). The fact that you pick and choose what rights people have demonstrates you're not using reason, rather you are rationalizing your massively hackneyed ideology that emphasizes private everything. So naturally you think rights sound good when they free one up to do nothing, having nill responsibility. That's why you think "rights to life" (e.g. right to health care) makes no sense....because they are "freedoms to something" (like the right to exist) rather than "freedoms from something." You think you can pick and choose. But without one, you cannot have the other. Life is the need for food, health care etc. Without those a person is not existing in society but is treated as an animal. Natural rights are about civility, society and yet you refuse to ideologically grant certain rights because you think life does not entail the right to life (the right to food etc.).



N one is picking and choosing anything. We are arguing that rights are innate, not granted by government. In order to make that argument we have to be able to demonstrate that the rights we are referring to actually exist in nature or that they are natural extensions of things that exist in nature. Hence, the right to free speech, but not the right to vote.



gnarlylove said:


> Sadly your massive head trauma sustained months back has left you incapable of carrying a conversation deeply rooted in reality. You prefer fantasy and ideology over reality and refuse to believe anything can contradict your highly deficient worldview. No one can work with such a hackneyed trial-version philosopher where you expire beyond your programmed set of beliefs and shut down upon fundamental demurs. Nothing personal, just describing your behavior as I've seen it.



Which explains why you resort to insults instead of actually dealing with the logical fallacies in your own position.


----------



## gnarlylove

So you're saying these rights exist naturally, in nature? So is physics or biology going to eventually discover them? When you say they are innate, are they hard wired code of ethics? Or when you say innate do you mean they exist independent of subjects, that they are objective notions that transcend time and space? If you mean the latter, you are invoking a god figure.

And don't pretend you have any room to evaluate insults as a logical fallacy. Last month you had no concept of how to respectfully reply. I see that has changed but don't act like you have any credibility as a person concerned with cold hard logic when you become hostile at a moments notice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> So you're saying these rights exist naturally, in nature? So is physics or biology going to eventually discover them? When you say they are innate, are they hard wired code of ethics? Or when you say innate do you mean they exist independent of subjects, that they are objective notions that transcend time and space? If you mean the latter, you are invoking a god figure.
> 
> And don't pretend you have any room to evaluate insults as a logical fallacy. Last month you had no concept of how to respectfully reply. I see that has changed but don't act like you have any credibility as a person concerned with cold hard logic when you become hostile at a moments notice.



Feel free to go back through and read the thread, you might find that I already provided scientific evidence to back up my position. 

Funny thing, no one who disagrees with me provided any evidence to support their position, yet you are still insisting I need to prove something. All you have to do to prove me wrong is show a single example of anyone in history ever transferring a natural right from one person to another. It should be easy, unless you are wrong.

By the way, genius, I never said your insults are logical fallacies, I said you  resort to insults rather than deal with the logical fallacies in your position, this post is the perfect example of that particular tactic. I use insults because I fucking enjoy insulting people. I also use arguments to destroy their positions. You, on the other hand, use insults because you have no arguments.


----------



## GreenBean

Quantum Windbag said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument might make more sense if you actually addressed my replies to your posts rather than throwing out an insult when I challenge another poster to actually back up his claims. On the other hand, doing it this way does relieve you of the requirement of actually thinking.
Click to expand...


*What argument*  lol.... I just made an observation.
I haven't been participating in this discussion, just watching you get your ass kicked.

And I did pay you a compliment, basicallly I said you can't possibly be as dumd as you sometimes sound .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a natural right.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me?  Quantum is the quintessential bard of the succinct profundity, typically in the form of a simple statement or question, that demolishes the bunk of others.  That you apparently cannot extrapolate the grander points he's making with these simple statements and questions is not his problem, but yours. 

Not the sharpest tool?!  He's hands down one of the sharpest tools on this or any other board.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument might make more sense if you actually addressed my replies to your posts rather than throwing out an insult when I challenge another poster to actually back up his claims. On the other hand, doing it this way does relieve you of the requirement of actually thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What argument*  lol.... I just made an observation.
> I haven't been participating in this discussion, just watching you get your ass kicked.
> 
> And I did pay you a compliment, basicallly I said you can't possibly be as dumd as you sometimes sound .
Click to expand...


By whom?  Rabbi?  LOL!  As I said before, Rabbi's never gotten beyond the first principles of this matter in his entire life.  He can't make the extrapolations concerning Quantum's points either.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> dblacks position that inalienable rights exist has no framework. He has no noncircular justification for them. Do you reference God, dblack?
> 
> They sound good in order to protect private property and individual desire but they are purely subjective opinions (that happen to be held by an overwhelming majority so it fools you into universality). The fact that you pick and choose what rights people have demonstrates you're not using reason, rather you are rationalizing your massively hackneyed ideology that emphasizes private everything. So naturally you think rights sound good when they free one up to do nothing, having nill responsibility. That's why you think "rights to life" (e.g. right to health care) makes no sense....because they are "freedoms to something" (like the right to exist) rather than "freedoms from something." You think you can pick and choose. But without one, you cannot have the other. Life is the need for food, health care etc. Without those a person is not existing in society but is treated as an animal. Natural rights are about civility, society and yet you refuse to ideologically grant certain rights because you think life does not entail the right to life (the right to food etc.).
> 
> Sadly your massive head trauma sustained months back has left you incapable of carrying a conversation deeply rooted in reality. You prefer fantasy and ideology over reality and refuse to believe anything can contradict your highly deficient worldview. No one can work with such a hackneyed trial-version philosopher where you expire beyond your programmed set of beliefs and shut down upon fundamental demurs. Nothing personal, just describing your behavior as I've seen it.



That's a little rough, gnarlylove; but, yes, dblack's position is weak for the reasons I pointed out in the above.  But he is right about the existence of natural, inalienable rights.


----------



## dblack

Once again, the only real argument here is over definitions, which makes for pretty dull debate. My premise is that the concept of 'inalienable rights' is identical to free will. Hopefully, everyone would agree that government doesn't grant us free will, that we have it as an innate property of the mind. If your premise is that inalienable rights are something more, than that doesn't hold.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> Once again, the only real argument here is over definitions, which makes for pretty dull debate. My premise is that the concept of 'inalienable rights' is identical to free will. Hopefully, everyone would agree that government doesn't grant us free will, that we have it as an innate property of the mind. If your premise is that inalienable rights are something more, than that doesn't hold.




*If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*



This thread just sucks at this point. 

You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question. 

It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

This concept truly is beyond you, bro. If inalienable rights are egalitarian, and they involve the right to life and to property, how is it that any individual has the right to infringe upon the inalienable rights of someone else? They don't. That;s the entire point essentially. That EACH individual has such rights. No one has any right to infringe upon the rights of another in stealing and/or killing.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> This concept truly is beyond you, bro. If inalienable rights are egalitarian, and they involve the right to life and to property, how is it that any individual has the right to infringe upon the inalienable rights of someone else? They don't. That;s the entire point essentially. That EACH individual has such rights. No one has any right to infringe upon the rights of another in stealing and/or killing.



It's not beyond me,

you admitted they were abstract and not provable.

you were done, at that point.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Now you're just misrepresenting it. They do not need to be proven, is what I said. And you can not answer the question posed because you know damned well you've spent two days in this thread digging a real deep hole and you refuse to relent.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*



It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.



> This thread just sucks at this point.
> 
> You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question.
> 
> It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.



Agreed.

I realize most of you are coming at this from a different angle, but I really do think what I'm conveying is all that Jefferson really meant. Basically, he was just saying that we start out with basic freedom - free will - and we create governments to protect that freedom, to make it possible for us to live together and avoid stepping all over each other.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Now you're just misrepresenting it. They do not need to be proven, is what I said. And you can not answer the question posed because you know damned well you've spent two days in this thread digging a real deep hole and you refuse to relent.



The question posed?

You're irrelevant. 

You continue to post logical fallacy after logical fallacy and don't even know when you're doing it, whats the point of continuing?

And then when your debate is lost, over and over, you claim you're leaving. 

You're still here. 

You're not "over it." 

you can't be "over it," because you still don't understand that you're wrong. 




One more time, this has not been refuted:

Natural Rights are not provable to exist, only *rights* are provable to exist - - - - - they exist because we invented them.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?

And if not, then how come if free will and inalienable rights are identical as you posited, then WHY not?


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?
Click to expand...


Yes.

I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't _protected_ freedoms, but _existential_ freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't _protected_ freedoms, but _existential_ freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.
Click to expand...


I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong. 

Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable. 

I concur that your statement would be correct (still not provable, however), that if rights were the same thing as free will - - - - - - your statement is congruent and we'd be born with them. (not agreeing with your statement, but taking it to its ends) -->

BUT, once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them. 

The government clearly infringes upon robbing, stealing and killing.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't _protected_ freedoms, but _existential_ freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.
> 
> Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.
> ...
> 
> once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.
Click to expand...


Heh.. I even disagree with your disagreement. I'd say, if anything, my interpretation of the second word, 'rights', would be the weak link.

'Inalienable' is pretty clear. It most definitely does NOT mean that it can't be infringed. It means it can't be permanently removed - it's integral and permanently attached. No matter what government, or anyone else, does to temporarily inhibit your free will, you still have it. And as soon as they go away, or otherwise stop infringing, your freedom is restored.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't _protected_ freedoms, but _existential_ freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.
> 
> Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.
> ...
> 
> once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.. I even disagree with your disagreement. I'd say, if anything, my interpretation of the second word, 'rights', would be the weak link.
> 
> 'Inalienable' is pretty clear. It most definitely does NOT mean that it can't be infringed. It means it can't be permanently removed - it's integral and permanently attached. No matter what government, or anyone else, does to temporarily inhibit your free will, you still have it. And as soon as they go away, or otherwise stop infringing, your freedom is restored.
Click to expand...


lol that's a ton of liberty you're taking with the terms though man

they actually wrote about these things and what they meant exactly, and lol robbing and stealing etc were not in their realm of inalienable rights

what you're doing is making the entire essence of inalienable rights meaningless - saying that all the walls of text on inalienable rights the founders/locke etc. wrote could have been summarized with one easy phrase: youre born so you have the right to everything


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> what you're doing is making the entire essence of inalienable rights meaningless - saying that all the walls of text on inalienable rights the founders/locke etc. wrote could have been summarized with one easy phrase: youre born so you have the right to everything



Well, that's equivocating on the word 'right', which is very easy to do here. To say you 'have a right' to something is referring to protected rights, not existential rights.

Anyway, I don't think I'm rendering 'inalienable rights' meaningless, but I am denying the meaning that's usually attached to the phrase. Mainly, because when I read it that way I run into the same problems you, and others here, are pointing out - it doesn't make any sense. If I do read it that way, I have to conclude that Jefferson was an idiot. I'm going on a hunch that he wasn't, and assuming he meant his writing to make sense.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you're doing is making the entire essence of inalienable rights meaningless - saying that all the walls of text on inalienable rights the founders/locke etc. wrote could have been summarized with one easy phrase: youre born so you have the right to everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's equivocating on the word 'right', which is very easy to do here. To say you 'have a right' to something is referring to protected rights, not existential rights.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think I'm rendering 'inalienable rights' meaningless, but I am denying the meaning that's usually attached to the phrase. Mainly, because when I read it that way I run into the same problems you, and others here, are pointing out - it doesn't make any sense. If I do read it that way, I have to conclude that Jefferson was an idiot. I'm going on a hunch that he wasn't, and assuming he meant his writing to make sense.
Click to expand...


Well, Jefferson wasn't an idiot but he was wrong about some things, that's for damn sure.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblacks position that inalienable rights exist has no framework. He has no noncircular justification for them. Do you reference God, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The framework is that they come from nature. Unless you are tryng to insist that God is nature there is no real need to bring Him into the discussion.
Click to expand...


Correct.  G.T. thought I was.  Wrong.  As I've shown, it's immediately self-evident that they obtain in nature as a matter of the pragmatic, everyday exigencies and consequences of human life and conduct; that is to say, they exist in nature or exist as natural, immediate extensions of the name.  They are not granted by or derived from government.

However, make no mistake about it, they are ultimately endowed by God, as He is the Creator of nature.  The reason that in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding this idea is advanced is because it emphasis the fact that government is _not_ the Source and Guarantor of these rights, to emphasize the fact that they are inalienable, inviolable, sacrosanct, inviolable, absolute beyond the imperatives of nature as well.

Hence, the so-called divine right of kings is hokum, and the right of revolt against tyranny is absolute.


----------



## G.T.

Rights cannot be proven to exist in nature. 

Only basic instincts. 

Rights are a construct developed by intelligent humans as a driver to better coexist.


----------



## Katzndogz

It seems like liberals are going to claim that people have no rights other than those bestowed by the government to overturn the Bill of Rights.

Yes they are.


----------



## G.T.

Katzndogz said:


> It seems like liberals are going to claim that people have no rights other than those bestowed by the government to overturn the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Yes they are.



It doesn't seem like you read a conversation and follow it very well.


----------



## gnarlylove

M.D. Rawlings said:


> However, make no mistake about it, they are ultimately endowed by God, as He is the Creator of nature.  The reason that in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding this idea is advanced is because it emphasis the fact that government is _not_ the Source and Guarantor of these rights, to emphasize the fact that they are inalienable, inviolable, sacrosanct, inviolable, absolute beyond the imperatives of nature as well.



Like M.D., in order to claim inalienable rights exist one must either assert an absolute deity who grants these "inalienable" rights or they are not inalienable. Inalienable means they are universal rights that under no circumstances be revoked. However, we act and the government certainly carries out action that negates inalienable rights in supposedly justified scenarios. So either humans are breaking god-given rights through our free will or inalienable rights are not de facto not inalienable--incapable of being infringed. These rights are mere suggestions, not to be taken as universal. They are to be pndered whether they apply or not in a given scenario. Inalienable rights would mean there is no need to think whether they apply, because they always do.

Precisely because certain people misbehave, we revoke their inalienable rights and we count this as justified. Thus, inalienable rights are not universal and therefore are not inalienable.

How do you arrive at inalienable rights, dblack? Simply saying "we have inalienable rights" carries no justification. Assertions are not facts, they are assertions.

In my view, inalienable rights are derived from biological principles that propagate what we call morals. Take toddlers for instance, that they pick up language and learn it without being taught its grammar and structure, this shows biology has innate principles that we have a certain immediate access to though we do not understand the innate biology behind it.  In the same manner, we can construct these rights we speak of but we must keep in mind that we don't have clear access into what these principles are, only that we have access to our interpretation of them which can be very different. I'm not speaking of English, I'm speaking of the general principles of language. So I'm not speaking about Western version of codified inalienable rights, I'm speaking of universal, inalienable rights that are innate to human beings.

Thus I think it makes sense to say food is an inalienable right because without food, the biological organism ceases. However, this is not intended to mean that an isolated human on an island is provided food by god or nature, that human must seek it out and there's a chance nothing is edible on the island. So what I'm saying is these principles cannot exist without other humans. They are "social inalienable rights" that only exist in relation to other human beings. It makes no sense to say I have the inalienable right to free speech when no one else exists. It only makes sense in a community.

So you can continue to pick and choose, dblack, that humans do have the right to free speech but do not have the right to food. This would only make sense in a pre-civilization era or when humans did not exist in bands. And your overtly insane idea of privatization reverts us back into this ugly period of every animal for self. Civilization IS because it is the recognition that working together is better than sticking to our private life. And the way to co-exist in communities is having a delineated concept of inalienable rights. However, that delineated concept is not to be taken as 100% absolute and unchangeable--humans make mistakes.

We need to understand that the right to life and health care, given our modern capability, must be considered an inalienable right IFF we are to continue co-existing in society. otherwise, neglecting very specific groups of people because they lack money and the ability to earn money to pay for essential life supporting needs is a categorical mistake. It leads to unrest and insurrection. Do you understand?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument might make more sense if you actually addressed my replies to your posts rather than throwing out an insult when I challenge another poster to actually back up his claims. On the other hand, doing it this way does relieve you of the requirement of actually thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What argument*  lol.... I just made an observation.
> I haven't been participating in this discussion, just watching you get your ass kicked.
> 
> And I did pay you a compliment, basicallly I said you can't possibly be as dumd as you sometimes sound .
Click to expand...


Your "observation" is that I make stupid arguments, and you prove this by not answering the actual arguments I make. If they were really stupid you should be able to take them apart, instead, like everyone else who claims I am wrong, you sit back and declare your side the winner by acclamation.

Great job.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Once again, the only real argument here is over definitions, which makes for pretty dull debate. My premise is that the concept of 'inalienable rights' is identical to free will. Hopefully, everyone would agree that government doesn't grant us free will, that we have it as an innate property of the mind. If your premise is that inalienable rights are something more, than that doesn't hold.



I prefer to think of free will as the fundamental expression of natural rights, but I am not going to quibble over the details.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the only real argument here is over definitions, which makes for pretty dull debate. My premise is that the concept of 'inalienable rights' is identical to free will. Hopefully, everyone would agree that government doesn't grant us free will, that we have it as an innate property of the mind. If your premise is that inalienable rights are something more, than that doesn't hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*
> 
> 
> 
> This thread just sucks at this point.
> 
> You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question.
> 
> It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.
Click to expand...


Amazing how you think man is fundamentally evil. Is there a theological reason behind your argument, or are you jst so confounded by the concept of free will that you think the only possible expression of it is to attack others?

By the way, I make my posts as I read through the thread, I don't sit around waiting for people to respond to my posts before I read another post. If you actually thought my replies misrepresent something you would be free to quote them and point out what I got wrong. Your real problem isn't that my posts don't address the issues, it is that you can't refute them.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the only real argument here is over definitions, which makes for pretty dull debate. My premise is that the concept of 'inalienable rights' is identical to free will. Hopefully, everyone would agree that government doesn't grant us free will, that we have it as an innate property of the mind. If your premise is that inalienable rights are something more, than that doesn't hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*
> 
> 
> 
> This thread just sucks at this point.
> 
> You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question.
> 
> It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how you think man is fundamentally evil. Is there a theological reason behind your argument, or are you jst so confounded by the concept of free will that you think the only possible expression of it is to attack others?
Click to expand...


heh, what an irrelevant question.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?
> 
> And if not, then how come if free will and inalienable rights are identical as you posited, then WHY not?
Click to expand...


Only in the sense that people can actually do those things, and nothing you can do will prevent them. That does not actually make them rights though because actions are not rights.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?
> 
> And if not, then how come if free will and inalienable rights are identical as you posited, then WHY not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in the sense that people can actually do those things, and nothing you can do will prevent them. That does not actually make them rights though because actions are not rights.
Click to expand...


Yea, I'm not the one saying they were. 

The guy I'm responding to was.

Jeebus.


----------



## oldfart

dblack said:


> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.



I agree that the discussion is mainly a case of semantic confusion.  You bring up a point that bears further comment when you use as an example a "right to health care".  Although the concepts are a lot older, Americans associate them with Wilson's Fourteen Points in international relations and FDRs Four Freedoms in domestic affairs.  The third point is "Freedom from Want".  This was further advanced in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  

In FDRs formulation, "freedom from want" had equal standing and was parallel to "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", and "freedom from fear".  By calling them freedoms, FDR implied that they were aspirational goals, not enforceable rights.  The UDHR was an international attempt to convert such aspirations to enforceable rights, or at least causes of action.  

Now as aspirations, I see no problem in declaring a goal of providing any person the basic necessities of life.  This is irrespective of what we call them.  The objection seems to be to regarding them as enforceable rights, which imply a structure for enforcement. Presumably enforcement would be by governmental action.  Personally I have no objection to this either; I see no sense in declaring objectives for society or government and then having no way of implementing them.  I realize that this opens the door to a discussion of the redistributive effects of government action, but most government actions have distribution effects whether we discuss them or not.  Usually such effects are deleterious to society as a whole and to the mechanisms of government itself if such control is hidden.  

A long tradition in political philosophy holds that quite different rights are combined in a package, and that any social contract that exists has as a prerequisite that most members agree to accept the compact.  The Bill of Rights was a bargain struck to ensure passage of the Constitution.  In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he recognized the people's rights to change the government both by constitutional and by revolutionary means.  We cannot cherry-pick which rights are absolute and which are negotiable.  We should not try to live under the slogan "What's mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable!"

For example, property rights are never off the table.  Should the American society decide to confiscate wealth over a certain level or of a certain type, it can do so by either constitutional or revolutionary methods.  There is no "right" that can stop it. 

This is the essence of the Declaration of Independence, which is in essence a declaration of a revolutionary "right" to restructure the arrangements of power and government when a sufficient number of citizens decide to do so and have the ability to succeed in the ensuing test of arms.  No ever said that revolutions had to be peaceful, or successful, or even to achieve their original goals.  Often they are failed and enormously destructive.  But as a matter of "natural law" the founding fathers believed that they had a "natural right" to rebellion, if they could persuade the world that it was justified and attracted sufficient resources to win the test of arms.  This is the one "right", rooted in the use of force, political, economic, and military, which rests on no political theory at all.  This is the one right which requires no agreement or permission of others.  All it requires is the willingness to lose everything, including one's life and family, in the following conflict.  

So where does a "right" to a bearable standard of living come from?  From the consent of most of society if it can be garnered, and after that only from a revolution.  Those who cannot negotiate the first are likely to be disappointed with the second. 

This is a sword that cuts both ways.  A society that cannot resolve its conflicts within the  bounds of political processes will find those conflicts resolved outside of those political processes.  Anyone who believes a certain outcome in their favor is foreordained is engaging in self deception.  Those who believe that they must prevail as a matter of "right" are the most deluded of all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't _protected_ freedoms, but _existential_ freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.
> 
> Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.
> 
> I concur that your statement would be correct (still not provable, however), that if rights were the same thing as free will - - - - - - your statement is congruent and we'd be born with them. (not agreeing with your statement, but taking it to its ends) -->
> 
> BUT, once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.
> 
> The government clearly infringes upon robbing, stealing and killing.
Click to expand...


That is not how he used it. He was writing the Declaration of Independence because the government was infringing on those rights, and he saw it as a duty of every free man to fight against that government.



> 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.--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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long  established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and  accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to  suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by  abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train  of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a  design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it  is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards  for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of  these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to  alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present  King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,  all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny  over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid  world.



That means you are totally misrepresenting what Jefferson mean by unalienable rights, which is why you don't actually comprehend the arguments.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't _protected_ freedoms, but _existential_ freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.
> 
> Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.
> 
> I concur that your statement would be correct (still not provable, however), that if rights were the same thing as free will - - - - - - your statement is congruent and we'd be born with them. (not agreeing with your statement, but taking it to its ends) -->
> 
> BUT, once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.
> 
> The government clearly infringes upon robbing, stealing and killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not how he used it. He was writing the Declaration of Independence because the government was infringing on those rights, and he saw it as a duty of every free man to fight against that government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.--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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long  established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and  accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to  suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by  abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train  of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a  design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it  is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards  for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of  these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to  alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present  King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,  all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny  over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid  world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means you are totally misrepresenting what Jefferson mean by unalienable rights, which is why you don't actually comprehend the arguments.
Click to expand...


No, I nailed it just fine.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblacks position that inalienable rights exist has no framework. He has no noncircular justification for them. Do you reference God, dblack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The framework is that they come from nature. Unless you are tryng to insist that God is nature there is no real need to bring Him into the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  G.T. thought I was.  Wrong.  As I've shown, it's immediately self-evident that they obtain in nature as a matter of the pragmatic, everyday exigencies and consequences of human life and conduct; that is to say, they exist in nature or exist as natural, immediate extensions of the name.  They are not granted by or derived from government.
> 
> However, make no mistake about it, they are ultimately endowed by God, as He is the Creator of nature.  The reason that in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding this idea is advanced is because it emphasis the fact that government is _not_ the Source and Guarantor of these rights, to emphasize the fact that they are inalienable, inviolable, sacrosanct, inviolable, absolute beyond the imperatives of nature as well.
> 
> Hence, the so-called divine right of kings is hokum, and the right of revolt against tyranny is absolute.
Click to expand...


My personal belief in God is irrelevant to the discussion of rights because, ultimately, they exist as part of our nature, even God cannot revoke them without unmaking what we are.


----------



## gnarlylove

Ostracizing people based on a narrow and blithe understanding of inalienable rights is leading to devastating consequences. By using a cheap version of human rights, we are ballooning unmitigated suffering to the global population and kicking them while their down. How in the fuck is this considered OK or some inalienable right of private gain? Is it a human right to be without means to life and without food when food is readily available? How upside down does your thinking need to be to believe such hogwash? It's kind of a moral truism that the more privilege you have, the more responsibility you have.

Do you think its the right of the company to withhold life simply because someone cannot pay for it? Corporations are not people and don't have the right to withhold food to those in need. What you fail to understand is corporations claimed land from Malaysians (and other subsistence peoples) thereby forcing them into the urban center to work for the corporation for less than 2 meals a day. How is this a human right to rape subsistence land for profit? Is this perfectly natural according to your doctrine? It is totally inhuman and so if your beliefs lead to such circumstances you have a major mistake in how you understand life.


----------



## G.T.

Rights don't exist as a part of our nature. 

Instincts exist as a part of our nature. 

Rights exist as a human expression of how best to coexist. Humans made them up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Rights cannot be proven to exist in nature.
> 
> Only basic instincts.
> 
> Rights are a construct developed by intelligent humans as a driver to better coexist.



If I took that position I would have to believe that nature is amoral. That would mean I would have to ignore the evidence that animals have a moral code, and are willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. I would also have to ignore the evidence the free will exists, and that you cannot stop me from making choices no matter how much force you put behind your efforts.

Also, as I have pointed out more than once, unless you can show me an example of rights being created, and transferred, by some entity other than nature, you have no case.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights cannot be proven to exist in nature.
> 
> Only basic instincts.
> 
> Rights are a construct developed by intelligent humans as a driver to better coexist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I took that position I would have to believe that nature is amoral. That would mean I would have to ignore the evidence that animals have a moral code, and are willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. I would also have to ignore the evidence the free will exists, and that you cannot stop me from making choices no matter how much force you put behind your efforts.
> 
> Also, as I have pointed out more than once, unless you can show me an example of rights being created, and transferred, by some entity other than nature, you have no case.
Click to expand...


Free will =/= rights. 

Animal instinct =/= rights.

The word rights has a meaning.


----------



## G.T.

An instinct to stay alive or keep your family alive does not imply a privilege to do so. 

It only implies instincts, brain chemistry, empathy. 

An instinct to seek happiness does not imply a privilege to do so. 

It only implies what you WANT, not your privilege to go and get it. 

Free will does not equal freedom. 

Free will means you control your own central nervous system, and said central nervous system CAN be influenced by outside forces however they cannot be inside of you controlling your literal will. (yet)

Freedom means the ability to ACT on your free will. 

Instinct, free will, freedom, rights, natural rights....................all different terms.


----------



## dblack

I wonder if the key people speaking up here would be willing to cite why the think it's important to make the call one way or another? I think we're all making certain assumptions about each other's motives, but we might as well be clear, eh? What is it that we think there is to be gained, or lost, by subscribing to one view or the other?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, make no mistake about it, they are ultimately endowed by God, as He is the Creator of nature.  The reason that in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding this idea is advanced is because it emphasis the fact that government is _not_ the Source and Guarantor of these rights, to emphasize the fact that they are inalienable, inviolable, sacrosanct, inviolable, absolute beyond the imperatives of nature as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like M.D., in order to claim inalienable rights exist one must either assert an absolute deity who grants these "inalienable" rights or they are not inalienable. Inalienable means they are universal rights that under no circumstances be revoked. However, we act and the government certainly carries out action that negates inalienable rights in supposedly justified scenarios. So either humans are breaking god-given rights through our free will or inalienable rights are not de facto not inalienable--incapable of being infringed. These rights are mere suggestions, not to be taken as universal. They are to be pndered whether they apply or not in a given scenario. Inalienable rights would mean there is no need to think whether they apply, because they always do.
Click to expand...


Why must a deity grant my rights? If this hypothetical deity exist, why must it only be one you approve of? Is there something you know about this deity that other mere mortals are unaware of? 

Once again, your concept of rights is very easy to prove. If rights are not unalienable, feel free to show my a single example of any entity, even your deity, that has ever transferred rights from one person to another. Until you do, you are simply making absurd claims without any evidence to back them up.



gnarlylove said:


> Precisely because certain people misbehave, we revoke their inalienable rights and we count this as justified. Thus, inalienable rights are not universal and therefore are not inalienable.



If it really worked that way there would be no recidivism, and absolutely no violence or crime inside prisons. Everyone would simply perform like a robot, and you wouldn't even be having this debate because you could point to all the unthinking robots who have had their rights revoked.



gnarlylove said:


> How do you arrive at inalienable rights, dblack? Simply saying "we have inalienable rights" carries no justification. Assertions are not facts, they are assertions.



Yet you claim the mere assertion that we do not have them is absolute proof we don't, and then refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts your POV.



gnarlylove said:


> In my view, inalienable rights are derived from biological principles that propagate what we call morals. Take toddlers for instance, that they pick up language and learn it without being taught its grammar and structure, this shows biology has innate principles that we have a certain immediate access to though we do not understand the innate biology behind it.  In the same manner, we can construct these rights we speak of but we must keep in mind that we don't have clear access into what these principles are, only that we have access to our interpretation of them which can be very different. I'm not speaking of English, I'm speaking of the general principles of language. So I'm not speaking about Western version of codified inalienable rights, I'm speaking of universal, inalienable rights that are innate to human beings.



In other words, you are declaring that rights do not exist, yet providing a mechanism that proves they are not mere constructs of human minds, but that they are actually inherent in us as living beings.

If this was a class in logic you would have just failed.



gnarlylove said:


> Thus I think it makes sense to say food is an inalienable right because without food, the biological organism ceases. However, this is not intended to mean that an isolated human on an island is provided food by god or nature, that human must seek it out and there's a chance nothing is edible on the island. So what I'm saying is these principles cannot exist without other humans. They are "social inalienable rights" that only exist in relation to other human beings. It makes no sense to say I have the inalienable right to free speech when no one else exists. It only makes sense in a community.



Because it is absolutely impossible for a single person to survive on an island even if there is food available, right?



gnarlylove said:


> So you can continue to pick and choose, dblack, that humans do have the right to free speech but do not have the right to food. This would only make sense in a pre-civilization era or when humans did not exist in bands. And your overtly insane idea of privatization reverts us back into this ugly period of every animal for self. Civilization IS because it is the recognition that working together is better than sticking to our private life. And the way to co-exist in communities is having a delineated concept of inalienable rights. However, that delineated concept is not to be taken as 100% absolute and unchangeable--humans make mistakes.



Ignoring the unmistakable truth that you quoted one person, yet insist on talking to a different person, you make absolutely no sense.

First you claim that we have no rights, but that they come from our nature. Then you claim that no one can survive unless there are other people to feed him which ignores the fact that people have survived despite not being around other people. Now you are claiming that the mere fact that you assert that rights come from other people is proof that they come from other people.



gnarlylove said:


> We need to understand that the right to life and health care, given our modern capability, must be considered an inalienable right IFF we are to continue co-existing in society. otherwise, neglecting very specific groups of people because they lack money and the ability to earn money to pay for essential life supporting needs is a categorical mistake. It leads to unrest and insurrection. Do you understand?



Because we have the right to demand that other people bow down before us and serve our personal wants and imagined needs, right?

Remember when I pointed out that you fail to address the logical fallacies inherent in your own arguments? Does me pointing out the inherent contradictions in your position help you see why you are wrong, or are you still going to insist that, because humans exist, you have  right to make them slaves?


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> I wonder if the key people speaking up here would be willing to cite why the think it's important to make the call one way or another? I think we're all making certain assumptions about each other's motives, but we might as well be clear, eh? What is it that we think there is to be gained, or lost, by subscribing to one view or the other?



An answer built in truth always has a better foundation to stand upon. 

A right is a concept, an abstract concept. It was invented. It cannot be proven to pre-exist its invention; therefore, believing in its preexistence is not truth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*
> 
> 
> 
> This thread just sucks at this point.
> 
> You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question.
> 
> It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how you think man is fundamentally evil. Is there a theological reason behind your argument, or are you jst so confounded by the concept of free will that you think the only possible expression of it is to attack others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> heh, what an irrelevant question.
Click to expand...


How is it irrelevant? You are arguing that, if rights exist, people have the right to rob, steal, and kill. Can you articulate why the right  to rob, steal, and kill the ultimate expression of natural rights, or are you simply saying stupid things in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your position?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how you think man is fundamentally evil. Is there a theological reason behind your argument, or are you jst so confounded by the concept of free will that you think the only possible expression of it is to attack others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heh, what an irrelevant question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it irrelevant? You are arguing that, if rights exist, people have the right to rob, steal, and kill. Can you articulate why the right  to rob, steal, and kill the ultimate expression of natural rights, or are you simply saying stupid things in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your position?
Click to expand...


No I wasn't arguing that.


I was arguing AGAINST that idea. 

This is what happens when you play johnny come lately in a conversation. 

dblack said the right to rob steal etc. existed, not GT

GT then took logical assertion and played it out, verbally, to its end. 

My gosh what a waste of breath.


----------



## G.T.

Rights were incorrect to be said to be self evident. 

What was self evident is that - based on observing our instincts - sentient humans felt we *SHOULD* have these rights. 

Hence their birth. 

It is illogical to say the rights themselves existed. 

They are concepts, not physical dna codes.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the key people speaking up here would be willing to cite why the think it's important to make the call one way or another? I think we're all making certain assumptions about each other's motives, but we might as well be clear, eh? What is it that we think there is to be gained, or lost, by subscribing to one view or the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An answer built in truth always has a better foundation to stand upon.
> 
> A right is a concept, an abstract concept. It was invented. It cannot be proven to pre-exist its invention; therefore, believing in its preexistence is not truth.
Click to expand...


Fine... but this is a political board. I'm assuming you see political implications. What are they?

As for me, I think it's important to recognize that rights are not dependent on compulsive state-governments, because I think we should stay open to other alternatives. Rather obviously, we can each protect our own rights, but that's fairly burdensome, and most of us don't want to go around packing heat or live in constant fear. I also think it's important to recognize that most of our freedom exists in virtue of mutual consent and NOT out of fear of government censure. Most of the time, we respect each others rights without the involvement of any authority.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?
> 
> And if not, then how come if free will and inalienable rights are identical as you posited, then WHY not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the sense that people can actually do those things, and nothing you can do will prevent them. That does not actually make them rights though because actions are not rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, I'm not the one saying they were.
> 
> The guy I'm responding to was.
> 
> Jeebus.
Click to expand...


Actually, you said it. Dblack was trying to address your assertion that free will/unalienable rights means people can do bad things. He did this by agreeing that the fact that people can do bad things proves they have the right to do them. You took this to means something he clearly did not intend it to mean and ran with it. I am here to mock you.

Enjoy.

Now that I proved my post is actually relevant, are you going to address the issues, or are you simply going to declare victory because you cannot deal with the fact that you are wrong?


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the key people speaking up here would be willing to cite why the think it's important to make the call one way or another? I think we're all making certain assumptions about each other's motives, but we might as well be clear, eh? What is it that we think there is to be gained, or lost, by subscribing to one view or the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An answer built in truth always has a better foundation to stand upon.
> 
> A right is a concept, an abstract concept. It was invented. It cannot be proven to pre-exist its invention; therefore, believing in its preexistence is not truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine... but this is a political board. I'm assuming you see political implications. What are they?
> 
> As for me, I think it's important to recognize that rights are not dependent on compulsive state-governments, because I think we should stay open to other alternatives. Rather obviously, we can each protect our own rights, but that's fairly burdensome, and most of us don't want to go around packing heat or live in constant fear. I also think it's important to recognize that most of our freedom exists in virtue of mutual consent and NOT out of fear of government censure. Most of the time, we respect each others rights without the involvement of any authority.
Click to expand...


I believe in basic human rights and not being able to take them away. 

Their origin still being mankind doesn't matter to my notion. 

The political implication is to point and giggle and say a talking point: "oh you don't believe they come from nature, you must believe a government can come whisk them away!!"

Well, no I don't believe that. 

I believe in fighting for those basic rights if a govt tries taking them away. 

Weird how when partisans can think past their noses, the shits not always so cut and dry.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the sense that people can actually do those things, and nothing you can do will prevent them. That does not actually make them rights though because actions are not rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I'm not the one saying they were.
> 
> The guy I'm responding to was.
> 
> Jeebus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you said it. Dblack was trying to address your assertion that free will/unalienable rights means people can do bad things. He did this by agreeing that the fact that people can do bad things proves they have the right to do them. You took this to means something he clearly did not intend it to mean and ran with it. I am here to mock you.
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> Now that I proved my post is actually relevant, are you going to address the issues, or are you simply going to declare victory because you cannot deal with the fact that you are wrong?
Click to expand...


No, bro. 

just no. 

Just leave that one to btwn the two who were talking about it, you for certain misunderstood what was going on. 

How could I be saying we have an inborn right to rob steal and kill if I don't believe our rights are inborn?     just be quiet.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

oldfart said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the discussion is mainly a case of semantic confusion.  You bring up a point that bears further comment when you use as an example a "right to health care".  Although the concepts are a lot older, Americans associate them with Wilson's Fourteen Points in international relations and FDRs Four Freedoms in domestic affairs.  The third point is "Freedom from Want".  This was further advanced in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
> 
> In FDRs formulation, "freedom from want" had equal standing and was parallel to "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", and "freedom from fear".  By calling them freedoms, FDR implied that they were aspirational goals, not enforceable rights.  The UDHR was an international attempt to convert such aspirations to enforceable rights, or at least causes of action.
> 
> Now as aspirations, I see no problem in declaring a goal of providing any person the basic necessities of life.  This is irrespective of what we call them.  The objection seems to be to regarding them as enforceable rights, which imply a structure for enforcement. Presumably enforcement would be by governmental action.  Personally I have no objection to this either; I see no sense in declaring objectives for society or government and then having no way of implementing them.  I realize that this opens the door to a discussion of the redistributive effects of government action, but most government actions have distribution effects whether we discuss them or not.  Usually such effects are deleterious to society as a whole and to the mechanisms of government itself if such control is hidden.
> 
> A long tradition in political philosophy holds that quite different rights are combined in a package, and that any social contract that exists has as a prerequisite that most members agree to accept the compact.  The Bill of Rights was a bargain struck to ensure passage of the Constitution.  In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he recognized the people's rights to change the government both by constitutional and by revolutionary means.  We cannot cherry-pick which rights are absolute and which are negotiable.  We should not try to live under the slogan "What's mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable!"
> 
> For example, property rights are never off the table.  Should the American society decide to confiscate wealth over a certain level or of a certain type, it can do so by either constitutional or revolutionary methods.  There is no "right" that can stop it.
> 
> This is the essence of the Declaration of Independence, which is in essence a declaration of a revolutionary "right" to restructure the arrangements of power and government when a sufficient number of citizens decide to do so and have the ability to succeed in the ensuing test of arms.  No ever said that revolutions had to be peaceful, or successful, or even to achieve their original goals.  Often they are failed and enormously destructive.  But as a matter of "natural law" the founding fathers believed that they had a "natural right" to rebellion, if they could persuade the world that it was justified and attracted sufficient resources to win the test of arms.  This is the one "right", rooted in the use of force, political, economic, and military, which rests on no political theory at all.  This is the one right which requires no agreement or permission of others.  All it requires is the willingness to lose everything, including one's life and family, in the following conflict.
> 
> So where does a "right" to a bearable standard of living come from?  From the consent of most of society if it can be garnered, and after that only from a revolution.  Those who cannot negotiate the first are likely to be disappointed with the second.
> 
> This is a sword that cuts both ways.  A society that cannot resolve its conflicts within the  bounds of political processes will find those conflicts resolved outside of those political processes.  Anyone who believes a certain outcome in their favor is foreordained is engaging in self deception.  Those who believe that they must prevail as a matter of "right" are the most deluded of all.
Click to expand...


You should look up negative income tax and research the libertarian arguments for it. The fact that I oppose a right to a minimum standard of living does not mean I would object to a sensible approach to government actually delivering on the concept.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread just sucks at this point.
> 
> You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question.
> 
> It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> I realize most of you are coming at this from a different angle, but I really do think what I'm conveying is all that Jefferson really meant. Basically, he was just saying that we start out with basic freedom - free will - and we create governments to protect that freedom, to make it possible for us to live together and avoid stepping all over each other.
Click to expand...


No.  Your stuff is crap.  You're all over the place, because you've never thought any of this stuff through.  Innate rights are _inalienable_ and _not_ inviolable at the same time, you say.  LOL!  You don't know the difference between mere freedoms and rights.  You don't grasp the practical distinctions between democracy and republicanism.  All of you whom rattle on about rights being cultural constructs or some such are the only ones dabbling in abstract distinctions that make no friggin' difference.  And the most risible thing of all, you keep prattling on about what you think Jefferson is talking about as if what you think about that is not an academically and empirically demonstrable facet of history.  Take you subject prattle about an objectively ascertainable matter to nearest swamp and dump it.

You don't have the first clue about that which you write, and like Rabbi your mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door, given your refusal to correct yourself or to revise your position  in the face of an obvious contradiction, just for starters.

I put down the historical background and outlined the structure of natural law on which this nation was founded.  And in addition to that I have thought things through.  Before and after my reading and analysis of that history.  Quantum knows this stuff too from either his historical readings on the matter or from the sheer genius of a quality mind that has thought the issues through.  That's abundantly clear from his astute observations and questions.  Ditto Take.  You don't see any of this for what it is because you don't know the history of natural law and have never thought these things through behind your belly button.

There is layer upon layer of complexity concerning natural law, and you have barely scratched the surface if you think free will is the end of all things.

That's why Take is laughing at you. 

Jefferson?  LOL!  Beyond the essential prose and the arrangement thereof, the sociopolitical philosophy in the Declaration of Independence is not Jefferson, but Locke and Sidney standing on the shoulders of Aristotle, Paul, Christ, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and others.

And by the way, the first order of the innate _freedoms_ that are subject to limitations is free will, which is _not_ an innately inalienable right, obviously, given the dynamics of light and transient transgressions and existential transgressions.

No doubt you thought that the terminology _light and transient transgressions_ is Jefferson too, utterly unaware of the fact that _light and transient transgressions versus existential transgressions of inalienable rights_ is a standard, historical construct in Anglo-American natural law predating Jefferson by centuries.


----------



## G.T.

whatever you were just babbling about, and whoever's post you were responding to, MD, it had nothing to do with proving the origin of rights


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.
> 
> Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.
> 
> I concur that your statement would be correct (still not provable, however), that if rights were the same thing as free will - - - - - - your statement is congruent and we'd be born with them. (not agreeing with your statement, but taking it to its ends) -->
> 
> BUT, once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.
> 
> The government clearly infringes upon robbing, stealing and killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how he used it. He was writing the Declaration of Independence because the government was infringing on those rights, and he saw it as a duty of every free man to fight against that government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.--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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long  established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and  accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to  suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by  abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train  of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a  design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it  is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards  for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of  these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to  alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present  King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,  all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny  over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid  world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That means you are totally misrepresenting what Jefferson mean by unalienable rights, which is why you don't actually comprehend the arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I nailed it just fine.
Click to expand...


You claimed that Jefferson meant that government cannot infringe on unalienable rights, yet he listed numerous was that government did so and argued that the sum total of those infringements was cause for rebellion. Did you notice he never argued that the mere fact that government infringed on them is not a cause for rebellion, that it is only justifiable when it reaches a pint of despotism?

So, tell me, how did you nail it just fine?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Ostracizing people based on a narrow and blithe understanding of inalienable rights is leading to devastating consequences. By using a cheap version of human rights, we are ballooning unmitigated suffering to the global population and kicking them while their down. How in the fuck is this considered OK or some inalienable right of private gain? Is it a human right to be without means to life and without food when food is readily available? How upside down does your thinking need to be to believe such hogwash? It's kind of a moral truism that the more privilege you have, the more responsibility you have.
> 
> Do you think its the right of the company to withhold life simply because someone cannot pay for it? Corporations are not people and don't have the right to withhold food to those in need. What you fail to understand is corporations claimed land from Malaysians (and other subsistence peoples) thereby forcing them into the urban center to work for the corporation for less than 2 meals a day. How is this a human right to rape subsistence land for profit? Is this perfectly natural according to your doctrine? It is totally inhuman and so if your beliefs lead to such circumstances you have a major mistake in how you understand life.



I haven't seen anyone ostracizing anyone in this thread, perhaps you should go stick your fake arguments in another thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights cannot be proven to exist in nature.
> 
> Only basic instincts.
> 
> Rights are a construct developed by intelligent humans as a driver to better coexist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I took that position I would have to believe that nature is amoral. That would mean I would have to ignore the evidence that animals have a moral code, and are willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. I would also have to ignore the evidence the free will exists, and that you cannot stop me from making choices no matter how much force you put behind your efforts.
> 
> Also, as I have pointed out more than once, unless you can show me an example of rights being created, and transferred, by some entity other than nature, you have no case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free will =/= rights.
> 
> Animal instinct =/= rights.
> 
> The word rights has a meaning.
Click to expand...


I never said it did, I said free will is proof that rights exist in nature. Your response is to insit that they don't and then argue in circles to prove that you are not addressing the issues.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how he used it. He was writing the Declaration of Independence because the government was infringing on those rights, and he saw it as a duty of every free man to fight against that government.
> 
> That means you are totally misrepresenting what Jefferson mean by unalienable rights, which is why you don't actually comprehend the arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I nailed it just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed that Jefferson meant that government cannot infringe on unalienable rights, yet he listed numerous was that government did so and argued that the sum total of those infringements was cause for rebellion. Did you notice he never argued that the mere fact that government infringed on them is not a cause for rebellion, that it is only justifiable when it reaches a pint of despotism?
> 
> So, tell me, how did you nail it just fine?
Click to expand...



whatever you think you think you thought I said-

I never said that Jefferson said that no government *ever infringed *upon those rights so....

neat point dude.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I took that position I would have to believe that nature is amoral. That would mean I would have to ignore the evidence that animals have a moral code, and are willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. I would also have to ignore the evidence the free will exists, and that you cannot stop me from making choices no matter how much force you put behind your efforts.
> 
> Also, as I have pointed out more than once, unless you can show me an example of rights being created, and transferred, by some entity other than nature, you have no case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= rights.
> 
> Animal instinct =/= rights.
> 
> The word rights has a meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it did, I said free will is proof that rights exist in nature. Your response is to insit that they don't and then argue in circles to prove that you are not addressing the issues.
Click to expand...


I don't need to prove a negative. 

You need to explain how free will ipso facto is proof that rights exist in nature. 

My contention is that there is no proof. 

You also certainly haven't posted any. You merely keep pointing to empathy and instincts. Those don't hold a logical proof of rights. 

Maybe someone can dumb it down for you if that's confusing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> whatever you were just babbling about, and whoever's post you were responding to, MD, it had nothing to do with proving the origin of rights



I was talking to you, indirectly, as I addressed dblack, directly, who apparently agrees with your sentiments, the stuff of sheer ignorance, regarding the quality of the posts of those with whom you disagree, and all the dblack babbles nonsense about what Jefferson meant.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

It sucks?  Why?  Because we don't agree with you?

Innate rights most certainly are not the stuff of social constructs or the civil rights afforded by government!

That's your claim.  Now instead of bitching and degrading others, how about you back that claim with an argument about how rights are NOT absolute and universal?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> heh, what an irrelevant question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it irrelevant? You are arguing that, if rights exist, people have the right to rob, steal, and kill. Can you articulate why the right  to rob, steal, and kill the ultimate expression of natural rights, or are you simply saying stupid things in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I wasn't arguing that.
> 
> 
> I was arguing AGAINST that idea.
> 
> This is what happens when you play johnny come lately in a conversation.
> 
> dblack said the right to rob steal etc. existed, not GT
> 
> GT then took logical assertion and played it out, verbally, to its end.
> 
> My gosh what a waste of breath.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure he said the ability to do so exists, but I am willing to concede the point if you want to prove he brought it up first.


----------



## G.T.

I'll do this one more time. 

That we want to live - does not equal proof of a right to live. want(instinct), right ----two separate entities.

That we have free will - does not equal proof of a preexisting right to free*dom*. free will(own desires), right -----two separate entities.

Freedom itself does not equal a RIGHT to freedom. freedom(an existence of being), right - - - - -two separate entities. 

The innate desire FOR freedom, does not equal a RIGHT to freedom. (see above)



None of our wants and desires and instincts make an ipso facto logical proof, magically, of a right existing for those desires. We carved that out ourselves, to better ourselves because it was logical.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it irrelevant? You are arguing that, if rights exist, people have the right to rob, steal, and kill. Can you articulate why the right  to rob, steal, and kill the ultimate expression of natural rights, or are you simply saying stupid things in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I wasn't arguing that.
> 
> 
> I was arguing AGAINST that idea.
> 
> This is what happens when you play johnny come lately in a conversation.
> 
> dblack said the right to rob steal etc. existed, not GT
> 
> GT then took logical assertion and played it out, verbally, to its end.
> 
> My gosh what a waste of breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure he said the ability to do so exists, but I am willing to concede the point if you want to prove he brought it up first.
Click to expand...


He said free will is the SAME THING as inalienable rights. 

I said no it's not, because we have the free will to kill, etc. but do not have the inalienable right.

That's how that side conversation started.


You jumped in and accused me of thinking that humans have an inalienable right to steal and kill. 

your comments were irrelevant to what was taking place, hence my comment: irrelevant. 

I didn't think it would take this long to explain, oh well though.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I nailed it just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that Jefferson meant that government cannot infringe on unalienable rights, yet he listed numerous was that government did so and argued that the sum total of those infringements was cause for rebellion. Did you notice he never argued that the mere fact that government infringed on them is not a cause for rebellion, that it is only justifiable when it reaches a pint of despotism?
> 
> So, tell me, how did you nail it just fine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> whatever you think you think you thought I said-
> 
> I never said that Jefferson said that no government *ever infringed *upon those rights so....
> 
> neat point dude.
Click to expand...


You said, and I quote, "(W)hereas jeffersons (sic) use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them." Cannot does not mean they can, but shouldn't, it means they cannot.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that Jefferson meant that government cannot infringe on unalienable rights, yet he listed numerous was that government did so and argued that the sum total of those infringements was cause for rebellion. Did you notice he never argued that the mere fact that government infringed on them is not a cause for rebellion, that it is only justifiable when it reaches a pint of despotism?
> 
> So, tell me, how did you nail it just fine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever you think you think you thought I said-
> 
> I never said that Jefferson said that no government *ever infringed *upon those rights so....
> 
> neat point dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said, and I quote, "(W)hereas jeffersons (sic) use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them." Cannot does not mean they can, but shouldn't, it means they cannot.
Click to expand...


kay man


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free will =/= rights.
> 
> Animal instinct =/= rights.
> 
> The word rights has a meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did, I said free will is proof that rights exist in nature. Your response is to insit that they don't and then argue in circles to prove that you are not addressing the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove a negative.
> 
> You need to explain how free will ipso facto is proof that rights exist in nature.
> 
> My contention is that there is no proof.
> 
> You also certainly haven't posted any. You merely keep pointing to empathy and instincts. Those don't hold a logical proof of rights.
> 
> Maybe someone can dumb it down for you if that's confusing.
Click to expand...


You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive. You can conclusively prove that they are an abstract concept, or you can prove that they don't come from nature, which is proving the negative.

Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)

Simply declaring you are right, and then saying you don't have to prove it, only works if we are in third grade.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did, I said free will is proof that rights exist in nature. Your response is to insit that they don't and then argue in circles to prove that you are not addressing the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove a negative.
> 
> You need to explain how free will ipso facto is proof that rights exist in nature.
> 
> My contention is that there is no proof.
> 
> You also certainly haven't posted any. You merely keep pointing to empathy and instincts. Those don't hold a logical proof of rights.
> 
> Maybe someone can dumb it down for you if that's confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive, or you can prove that they don't, which is proving the negative.
> 
> Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)
Click to expand...


The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task. 

I submit that there is no proof. 


You have not provided any.

Noone has. 


There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing. 

I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.

and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc. 

things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.


I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I'll do this one more time.
> 
> That we want to live - does not equal proof of a right to live. want(instinct), right ----two separate entities.



Prove it.



G.T. said:


> That we have free will - does not equal proof of a preexisting right to free*dom*. free will(own desires), right -----two separate entities.



That might work for dblack, but it completely fails to address my argument. Free will is the ability to think, we have a right to think, and to make choices, completely independent of genetic programming, environment, or even our own desires/wants. This is the fundamental evidence that we are free, and that that freedom does not come from anything outside us. 



G.T. said:


> Freedom itself does not equal a RIGHT to freedom. freedom(an existence of being), right - - - - -two separate entities.



Prove it by actually taking away my free will. Until you can do that, or show me that my ability to make my own choices no matter what else is happening around me, comes from someone outside me. Until you can do that all you are doing is making an assertion without any evidence to back it up.



G.T. said:


> The innate desire FOR freedom, does not equal a RIGHT to freedom. (see above)



Yo say that like it proves something.

It doesn't.



G.T. said:


> None of our wants and desires and instincts make an ipso facto logical proof, magically, of a right existing for those desires. We carved that out ourselves, to better ourselves because it was logical.



I never claimed they did. I said the fact that they exist is evidence of our natural rights. You claim we don't have those rights, and declare everyone who disagrees with you wrong on the basis that you are right.

Funny thing, I am still the one presenting actual evidence for my position, all you are doing is declaring that the evidence is not enough to sway your close minded opinion, and then declare that the fact that you won't change your mind is ipso facto proof that you are right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove a negative.
> 
> You need to explain how free will ipso facto is proof that rights exist in nature.
> 
> My contention is that there is no proof.
> 
> You also certainly haven't posted any. You merely keep pointing to empathy and instincts. Those don't hold a logical proof of rights.
> 
> Maybe someone can dumb it down for you if that's confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive, or you can prove that they don't, which is proving the negative.
> 
> Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task.
> 
> I submit that there is no proof.
> 
> 
> You have not provided any.
> 
> Noone has.
> 
> 
> There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing.
> 
> I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.
> 
> and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc.
> 
> things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.
> 
> 
> I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that
Click to expand...


Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.

You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.


----------



## G.T.

That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen. 


I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing. 

And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing. 

Zero, none, zilch, nadda.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive, or you can prove that they don't, which is proving the negative.
> 
> Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task.
> 
> I submit that there is no proof.
> 
> 
> You have not provided any.
> 
> Noone has.
> 
> 
> There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing.
> 
> I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.
> 
> and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc.
> 
> things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.
> 
> 
> I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.
> 
> You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.
Click to expand...


Free will existing means that natural rights exist?

go ahead and explain how that works..........................im all ears


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing.
> 
> And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing.
> 
> Zero, none, zilch, nadda.



This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing.
> 
> And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing.
> 
> Zero, none, zilch, nadda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.
Click to expand...


No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights

Why not?

Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task.
> 
> I submit that there is no proof.
> 
> 
> You have not provided any.
> 
> Noone has.
> 
> 
> There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing.
> 
> I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.
> 
> and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc.
> 
> things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.
> 
> 
> I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.
> 
> You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free will existing means that natural rights exist?
> 
> go ahead and explain how that works..........................im all ears
Click to expand...


Eppur si muove.

I know, you don't get it, and yet it moves.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> 
> I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing.
> 
> And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing.
> 
> Zero, none, zilch, nadda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.
> 
> You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free will existing means that natural rights exist?
> 
> go ahead and explain how that works..........................im all ears
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eppur si muove.
> 
> I know, you don't get it, and yet it moves.
Click to expand...


Still no proof that rights are natural. I'm good with that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.
Click to expand...




I can think.
You cannot stop me from thinking.
Therefore I have the right to think.


I have the right to think.
The right to think gives me the ability to speak.
I have the right to speak.


The right to think is inherent n me.
The right to speak is inherent in me.
Rights that are inherent in me are natural.
Look at that, a simple, logical, proof that natural rights exist.


Now let us look at G.T.'s logic.


Natural rights do not exist.
Nothing anyone says will change my mind.
Natural rights do not exist.
Like I said, prove it.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can think.
> You cannot stop me from thinking.
> Therefore I have the right to think.
Click to expand...


The ability to do something does not equal the right to do something. Ability and right are not synonyms. That's not how logic works. "I can murder my mom. You cannot stop me from murdering my mom. Therefore I have the right to murder my mom" is just one glaring example of why this doesn't work. 


Quantum Windbag said:


> I have the right to think.
> The right to think gives me the ability to speak.
> I have the right to speak.



Same thing. *Ability = right* is all you're positing. that's a leap of logic. Unless of course the WORD right has a new definition as created by q.w.b. --> *Right = anything you have the ability to do. *

Sorry, that's not what right means. 


Quantum Windbag said:


> The right to think is inherent n me.
> The right to speak is inherent in me.
> Rights that are inherent in me are natural.
> Look at that, a simple, logical, proof that natural rights exist.
> 
> 
> Now let us look at G.T.'s logic.
> 
> 
> Natural rights do not exist.
> Nothing anyone says will change my mind.
> Natural rights do not exist.
> Like I said, prove it.



Sorry bro, but it is not logical to jump to conclusions.  

You jumped to conclusions without the logical backing. 

How does the ability to do something equate to the right to do it?> 

And if that's so - then you're literally positing that we have the right to do anything we are able to do. Which is silly. 



And I'll correct you on how GT's logic works, let the man show you how it's done:

GT says that:

Natural rights are not proven
He is seeking logical proof
none has been provided


----------



## G.T.

I cant even believe you think that's how logic works, too. 

I thought you were smarter than that to be honest. 

I have the ability to think therefore I have the right to think? That's logic? lol wowza


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This concept truly is beyond you, bro. If inalienable rights are egalitarian, and they involve the right to life and to property, how is it that any individual has the right to infringe upon the inalienable rights of someone else? They don't. That;s the entire point essentially. That EACH individual has such rights. No one has any right to infringe upon the rights of another in stealing and/or killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not beyond me,
> 
> you admitted they were abstract and not provable.
> 
> you were done, at that point.
Click to expand...


I don't know if that's true.  But I didn't, did I?  Because they're not!  *They're concrete, and I don't have to appeal to God.  They're embedded in nature.* *That's their immediate ORIGIN.*  Since you complain about links intended to save time, here it is again.
______________________________________

But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly. 

We know what they are. You know what they are.

They are self-evident because any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues. Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation. 

Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself. 

All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."

The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man. They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment. It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.

They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!

1. The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.

2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.

3. Freedom of religion/ideology. 

4. Freedom of expression.

5. Freedom of movement. 
_____________________________________

It's your contention that rights are mere social constructs or perhaps the civil/political rights afforded by government that's the stuff of theory, abstraction, mamby-pamby philosophizing.  

Once again, if what you say is true regarding the nature of rights, then prove it by showing how your underlying *relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition* about the reality of things is true.

But you just want to argue against straw men, right?  





*BTW, in case some of you are imagining a contradiction in my posts, the essential aspects of liberty (3, 4, 5), as distinguished from those of life and property, are commonly or idiomatically referred to in the historical literature of natural law as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement.  They are not freedoms proper, but the inalienable rights of human liberty.  In other words, the are the natural, inalienable rights of exercising human liberty.    *


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can think.
> You cannot stop me from thinking.
> Therefore I have the right to think.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ability to do something does not equal the right to do something. Ability and right are not synonyms. That's not how logic works. "I can murder my mom. You cannot stop me from murdering my mom. Therefore I have the right to murder my mom" is just one glaring example of why this doesn't work.
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the right to think.
> The right to think gives me the ability to speak.
> I have the right to speak.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing. *Ability = right* is all you're positing. that's a leap of logic. Unless of course the WORD right has a new definition as created by q.w.b. --> *Right = anything you have the ability to do. *
> 
> Sorry, that's not what right means.
Click to expand...


You asked for a logical proof of my position. I delivered one. If you think my premises are wrong, feel free to provide something other than your assertion that they are wrong to back up your claim.

Wait, that would actually require you to debate the issues, which is work, whereas you prefer to  declare yourself the winner by acclamation, which isn't.



G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to think is inherent n me.
> The right to speak is inherent in me.
> Rights that are inherent in me are natural.
> Look at that, a simple, logical, proof that natural rights exist.
> 
> 
> Now let us look at G.T.'s logic.
> 
> 
> Natural rights do not exist.
> Nothing anyone says will change my mind.
> Natural rights do not exist.
> Like I said, prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bro, but it is not logical to jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...


Except that it is. In fact logic is defined by the ability to reach a conclusion that is supported by two, or more, premises that may, or may not, be true. 

But, please, keep pretending you understand logic.



G.T. said:


> You jumped to conclusions without the logical backing.



What, exactly, is logical backing? I only ask because, outside of your head, I never heard of it.



G.T. said:


> How does the ability to do something equate to the right to do it?>



How does it not? 

The neat thing about logical premises is that the rules of logic require you to assume they are true. Funny how a guy that claims that I don't have a logical backing, whatever that is, for my conclusions doesn't understand that simple rule.

By the way, the above is one reason why I prefer to make arguments based on things other than logic.



G.T. said:


> And if that's so - then you're literally positing that we have the right to do anything we are able to do. Which is silly.



No, that is what you are posting. I never once said anything even remotely like that.

I will, however, admit that your conclusion is completely logical, which is another reason I rarely use logic in arguments. 

Funny how the guy that insisted on seeing logic suddenly discovers that he doesn't actually like logic, isn't it?



G.T. said:


> And I'll correct you on how GT's logic works, let the man show you how it's done:
> 
> GT says that:
> 
> Natural rights are not proven
> He is seeking logical proof
> none has been provided



I gave you logical proof, and your brain failed to process it because it doesn't understand the terms you are using.


----------



## G.T.

oh...




gosh


----------



## G.T.

A proof is irrefutable, that's what makes it proof. 

That ability = right is not proof. 

It is supposition, and it's incorrect by virtue of the definitions of the actual flipping words. 

Geebuz


----------



## auditor0007

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



Government is nothing more than those who have control, whether it be one dictator or a duly elected free government.  Either way, your rights are determined by whomever it is that controls the government.  If you believe differently, then go tell the women of Saudi Arabia or some other strict Muslim country that they don't have to listen to men.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> A proof is irrefutable, that's what makes it proof.
> 
> That ability = right is not proof.
> 
> It is supposition, and it's incorrect by virtue of the definitions of the actual flipping words.
> 
> Geebuz



There used to be irrefutable proof that the sun revolved around the Earth, then evidence came along. Your problem is you want irrefutable proof, and think evidence is irrelevant.


----------



## G.T.

Wanting irrefutable proof is not a problem.

And it was not proven that the sun revolved around the earth. EVER.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> How do you arrive at inalienable rights, dblack? Simply saying "we have inalienable rights" carries no justification. Assertions are not facts, they are assertions.



You're presuming the bloated, and in my opinion incorrect, definition of 'inalienable rights'. It's just free will, which is an innate property of human consciousness.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Wanting irrefutable proof is not a problem.
> 
> And it was not proven that the sun revolved around the earth. EVER.



Which is why Galileo never got in trouble for saying it worked the other way around.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model


----------



## G.T.

Yea dude. We all know it was once thought.

It was neva neva eva proven. Unless you dont know what proven means.

Anyway....gotta run got a radio show to host this eve. Peace out. Shows link is in the media area for any interested.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Yea dude. We all know it was once thought.
> 
> It was neva neva eva proven. Unless you dont know what proven means.
> 
> Anyway....gotta run got a radio show to host this eve. Peace out. Shows link is in the media area for any interested.



I posted the link to the science that proved that the sun revolves around the Earth. I can also provide links to the science that proves that heavier objects fall faster than light ones.

The person who has a problem understanding proof is you.


----------



## G.T.

If you think the sun revolves around the earth......youre done dude.


Youre just


Youre done. Dont talk to me. Get off my internet with that lol wowza


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> If you think the sun revolves around the earth......youre done dude.
> 
> 
> Youre just
> 
> 
> Youre done. Dont talk to me. Get off my internet with that lol wowza



Funny, I never said that the sun revolves around the Earth, I said that, at one time, there was irrefutable proof that it did.


----------



## G.T.

It wasnt irrefutable. It was refuted. 

Two words you dont know  now. 

Irrefutable. And proof.

If it was proof, its fact. If it was irrefutable, it would not have been refuted. Jesus christ.


----------



## Sallow

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This concept truly is beyond you, bro. If inalienable rights are egalitarian, and they involve the right to life and to property, how is it that any individual has the right to infringe upon the inalienable rights of someone else? They don't. That;s the entire point essentially. That EACH individual has such rights. No one has any right to infringe upon the rights of another in stealing and/or killing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not beyond me,
> 
> you admitted they were abstract and not provable.
> 
> you were done, at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if that's true.  But I didn't, did I?  Because they're not!  *They're concrete, and I don't have to appeal to God.  They're embedded in nature.* *That's their immediate ORIGIN.*  Since you complain about links intended to save time, here it is again.
> ______________________________________
> 
> But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.
> 
> We know what they are. You know what they are.
> 
> They are self-evident because any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues. Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation.
> 
> Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.
> 
> All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."
> 
> The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man. They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment. It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.
> 
> They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!
> 
> 1. The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.
> 
> 2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.
> 
> 3. Freedom of religion/ideology.
> 
> 4. Freedom of expression.
> 
> 5. Freedom of movement.
> _____________________________________
> 
> It's your contention that rights are mere social constructs or perhaps the civil/political rights afforded by government that's the stuff of theory, abstraction, mamby-pamby philosophizing.
> 
> Once again, if what you say is true regarding the nature of rights, then prove it by showing how your underlying *relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition* about the reality of things is true.
> 
> But you just want to argue against straw men, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, in case some of you are imagining a contradiction in my posts, the essential aspects of liberty (3, 4, 5), as distinguished from those of life and property, are commonly or idiomatically referred to in the historical literature of natural law as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement.  They are not freedoms proper, but the inalienable rights of human liberty.  In other words, the are the natural, inalienable rights of exercising human liberty.    *
Click to expand...


Nothing you cited is natural.

"Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.


----------



## oldfart

Quantum Windbag said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't  a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.
> 
> The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the discussion is mainly a case of semantic confusion.  You bring up a point that bears further comment when you use as an example a "right to health care".  Although the concepts are a lot older, Americans associate them with Wilson's Fourteen Points in international relations and FDRs Four Freedoms in domestic affairs.  The third point is "Freedom from Want".  This was further advanced in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
> 
> In FDRs formulation, "freedom from want" had equal standing and was parallel to "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", and "freedom from fear".  By calling them freedoms, FDR implied that they were aspirational goals, not enforceable rights.  The UDHR was an international attempt to convert such aspirations to enforceable rights, or at least causes of action.
> 
> Now as aspirations, I see no problem in declaring a goal of providing any person the basic necessities of life.  This is irrespective of what we call them.  The objection seems to be to regarding them as enforceable rights, which imply a structure for enforcement. Presumably enforcement would be by governmental action.  Personally I have no objection to this either; I see no sense in declaring objectives for society or government and then having no way of implementing them.  I realize that this opens the door to a discussion of the redistributive effects of government action, but most government actions have distribution effects whether we discuss them or not.  Usually such effects are deleterious to society as a whole and to the mechanisms of government itself if such control is hidden.
> 
> A long tradition in political philosophy holds that quite different rights are combined in a package, and that any social contract that exists has as a prerequisite that most members agree to accept the compact.  The Bill of Rights was a bargain struck to ensure passage of the Constitution.  In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he recognized the people's rights to change the government both by constitutional and by revolutionary means.  We cannot cherry-pick which rights are absolute and which are negotiable.  We should not try to live under the slogan "What's mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable!"
> 
> For example, property rights are never off the table.  Should the American society decide to confiscate wealth over a certain level or of a certain type, it can do so by either constitutional or revolutionary methods.  There is no "right" that can stop it.
> 
> This is the essence of the Declaration of Independence, which is in essence a declaration of a revolutionary "right" to restructure the arrangements of power and government when a sufficient number of citizens decide to do so and have the ability to succeed in the ensuing test of arms.  No ever said that revolutions had to be peaceful, or successful, or even to achieve their original goals.  Often they are failed and enormously destructive.  But as a matter of "natural law" the founding fathers believed that they had a "natural right" to rebellion, if they could persuade the world that it was justified and attracted sufficient resources to win the test of arms.  This is the one "right", rooted in the use of force, political, economic, and military, which rests on no political theory at all.  This is the one right which requires no agreement or permission of others.  All it requires is the willingness to lose everything, including one's life and family, in the following conflict.
> 
> So where does a "right" to a bearable standard of living come from?  From the consent of most of society if it can be garnered, and after that only from a revolution.  Those who cannot negotiate the first are likely to be disappointed with the second.
> 
> This is a sword that cuts both ways.  A society that cannot resolve its conflicts within the  bounds of political processes will find those conflicts resolved outside of those political processes.  Anyone who believes a certain outcome in their favor is foreordained is engaging in self deception.  Those who believe that they must prevail as a matter of "right" are the most deluded of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should look up negative income tax and research the libertarian arguments for it. The fact that I oppose a right to a minimum standard of living does not mean I would object to a sensible approach to government actually delivering on the concept.
Click to expand...


Actually, I've followed the "negative income tax" from when Uncle Milty proposed it over fifty years ago.  No need to research, I've posted his arguments for it in terms of administrative efficiency/cost and libertarian ideals of minimal government interference.  

I agree with you that if a society accepts a goal of providing a minimum standard of living to all members (which you do not, or at least not as a "matter of right"), then the negative income tax has a strong case as being most efficient and least destructive of personal liberties.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> It wasnt irrefutable. It was refuted.
> 
> Two words you dont know  now.
> 
> Irrefutable. And proof.
> 
> If it was proof, its fact. If it was irrefutable, it would not have been refuted. Jesus christ.



Umm, what?

Proof is not fact. It can be evidence that something is true, but it is not, in and of itself, a fact.



> 1_ a_ *:*  the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
> _b_ *:*   the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement  especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with  principles of reasoning
> 
> 2_ obsolete_ *:* experience
> 
> 3*:*  something that induces certainty or establishes validity
> 
> 4_archaic_ *:*  the quality or state of having been tested or tried; _especially_ *:*  unyielding hardness
> 
> 5*:*  evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
> 
> 6_a_ _plural_ *proofs* _or_ *proof* *:*  a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction
> _b_ *:*  a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph
> _c_ *:*   a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished  planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in  metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation
> _d_ *:*  a test photographic print made from a negative
> 
> 7*:*  a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
> 
> 8_a_ *:*  the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit
> _b_ *:*  strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; _specifically_ *:*  alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 _proof_ is 45 percent alcohol>



Proof - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It is entirely possible to prove something that isn't true. It has actually happened in real life, more than once.

Casandra Kennedy Recants Rape Charge Against Her Father, Freed After 9 Years - The Daily Beast

I really hate repeating myself, but you are not getting the message.

You
do
not
understand
proof.
​


----------



## G.T.

read 1a over and over and over to yourself

do so, for a really long long time


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, make no mistake about it, they are ultimately endowed by God, as He is the Creator of nature.  The reason that in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding this idea is advanced is because it emphasis the fact that government is _not_ the Source and Guarantor of these rights, to emphasize the fact that they are inalienable, inviolable, sacrosanct, inviolable, absolute beyond the imperatives of nature as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like M.D., in order to claim inalienable rights exist one must either assert an absolute deity who grants these "inalienable" rights or they are not inalienable.
Click to expand...


False.  One doesn't have to "assert an absolute deity" in order to _demonstrate_ the actualities of inalienable natural rights!  That's essentially the same challenge that G.T. raised, and he has yet to substantiate the relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition underlying this claim.  God's existence or non-existence is not immediately relevant, but thanks for conceding the fact, as did G.T., that they would be absolute beyond all doubt were they endowed by a Creator.  I'll remind you of that later should you attempt to substantiate what G.T. won't concerning the claim that innate rights are mere social constructs or the civil rights afforded by government.  

*(But the point that Quantum makes, concerning one's personal decision about divinity, in response to your sentiment is profound . . . for those who apprehend it.  Some of you won't.) * 

*gnarlylove*, the pertinent portion of the entire quote, which you left out, is in bold:



> *As I've shown, it's self-evident that they [inalienable natural rights] obtain in nature as a matter of the pragmatic, everyday exigencies and consequences of human life and conduct; that is to say, they exist in nature or exist as immediate, natural extensions of the same. They are not granted by or derived from government.*
> 
> However, make no mistake about it, they are ultimately endowed by God, as He is the Creator of nature. The reason that in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding this idea is advanced is because it emphasis the fact that government is not the Source and Guarantor of these rights, to emphasize the fact that they are inalienable, inviolable, sacrosanct, inviolable, absolute beyond the imperatives of nature as well.
> 
> Hence, the so-called divine right of kings is hokum, and the right of revolt against tyranny is absolute.



The latter portion of the quote is an afterthought.

There is no need to appeal to God in order to demonstrate the reality of inalienably natural rights!  



> Inalienable means they are universal rights that under no circumstances be revoked.



Fallacious predicate.  See below.  



> However, we act and the government certainly carries out action that negates inalienable rights in supposedly justified scenarios. So either humans are breaking god-given rights through our free will or inalienable rights are not de facto not inalienable--incapable of being infringed.



False on both counts.  (1) Free will is the stuff of volition or choice.  Free will and rights are categorically two different things.  In no construct or system of law--for example, natural law, common law, constitutional law or the case law of the Constitution--is free will a right of any kind.  It's an inherent fact of sentient beings, and falls under the heading of freedom.  (2)  Obviously, any right can be violated or infringed.   The inalienable rights of natural law do _not_ obtain in the sense you're going on about at all and never have. 

So Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Locke, Sidney, the Founders and many others were all retards, arguing that inalienable rights were absolute _because_ they were "incapable of being infringed"?   

That's ridiculous.

Think very carefully about the contents of the following paragraph.  

They obtain in the sense of their nature:  inalienable rights--being endowed at the very least by nature, and, thus, being inherently benign and fruitful--cannot be _legitimately_ violated.  That's all.  Checking the _illegitimate_ behavior of criminals by imprisonment or death does _not_ constitute a violation of their inalienable rights.  There is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate inalienable rights or legitimate civil rights, which, ultimately, is what you're unwittingly suggesting.  That's absurd.  Rather, it's the exertion of justice, provoked by criminality, via the due process of law.



> Precisely because certain people misbehave, we revoke their inalienable rights and we count this as justified. Thus, inalienable rights are not universal and therefore are not inalienable.



False.  There's a dichotomy here: defensive force-initial force.  You're hobbling around on one leg of it.  The body politic of the social contract, the _people_ collectively, have the same inalienable right under the rule of law in the state of civil government as the individual has to exert defensive force against the initial force of criminality, up to and including the use of deadly force.  Once again:  what is being arrested pertains to the violation of inalienable rights or legitimate civil rights.  

Go back to the drawing board, and don't pass _Go_.   



> In my view, inalienable rights are derived from biological principles that propagate what we call morals. Take toddlers for instance, that they pick up language and learn it without being taught its grammar and structure, this shows biology has innate principles that we have a certain immediate access to though we do not understand the innate biology behind it.  In the same manner, we can construct these rights we speak of but we must keep in mind that we don't have clear access into what these principles are, only that we have access to our interpretation of them which can be very different. I'm not speaking of English, I'm speaking of the general principles of language. So I'm not speaking about Western version of codified inalienable rights, *I'm speaking of universal, inalienable rights that are innate to human beings.*



That's the kind of rights the proponents of natural law are talking about too.  You seem to be bouncing all over the place.  In any event, I addressed this notion too in response to something G.T. wrote:



> Uh, _currently_, the reigning opinion in the epistemological literature, due to recent advances in the neurological sciences, holds that along with a universal baseline of geometric-logistic predilections: humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the human brain. The traditional, Aristotelian blank slate of Empiricism, at least in this respect, is dead.
> 
> But there's no need to linger on that as the imperatives of natural law are extrapolated from the self-evident exigencies of human nature, human interaction and historical experience.
> 
> In short, I'm not raising "a God debate." You missed my point entirely.
> 
> My contention has absolutely nothing to do with any empirical proof of God's existence. There is no such thing anyway, beyond what is, nevertheless, a very powerful teleological argument backed by a very powerful ontological argument.
> 
> I have no interest in proving the existence of God to anyone or getting into any theological discussion as such. I don't have to prove Gods' existence in order to _demonstrate_ the actualities of inalienable natural rights, as I have already _demonstrated_ in the above . . .
> 
> here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367
> 
> 
> . . . and again here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497






> Thus I think it makes sense to say food is an inalienable right because without food, the biological organism ceases.



I'm just going to pretend you never wrote that for now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> read 1a over and over and over to yourself
> 
> do so, for a really long long time



Lets do that.

The cogency [quality or state of being convincing or persuasive] of evidence [that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief] that compels [force or drive] acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

Damn, I was right.


----------



## percysunshine

*Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?*

This is a chicken/egg question. 

Since Government was invented to protect existing individual natural rights, natural rights existed first, and government came second. So natural rights existed without government. 

Of course, some forms of government go postal on the governed and try to destroy natural rights, but they ultimately self destruct ... as forms of government.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> *Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?*
> 
> This is a chicken/egg question.
> 
> Since Government was invented to protect existing individual natural rights, natural rights existed first, and government came second. So natural rights existed without government.
> 
> Of course, some forms of government go postal on the governed and try to destroy natural rights, but they ultimately self destruct ... as forms of government.
> 
> .



False.  The role of a _legitimate_ government is to protect and promote the rights of all the people concerning their individual, inalienable natural rights to be sure, but (1) protecting and promoting something is not the same thing as (2) being the origin of something.  Note the categorical incongruity in that summary of your logic:  the first predicate denotes action, the second denotes being.  You're analogy is fallacious.  It's inherently contradictory and self-negating.  It's not a conundrum.


----------



## percysunshine

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?*
> 
> This is a chicken/egg question.
> 
> Since Government was invented to protect existing individual natural rights, natural rights existed first, and government came second. So natural rights existed without government.
> 
> Of course, some forms of government go postal on the governed and try to destroy natural rights, but they ultimately self destruct ... as forms of government.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  The role of a _legitimate_ government is to protect and promote the rights of all the people concerning their individual, inalienable natural rights to be sure, but (1) protecting and promoting something is not the same thing as (2) being the origin of something.  Note the categorical incongruity in that summary of your logic:  the first predicate denotes action, the second denotes being.  You're analogy is fallacious.  It's inherently contradictory and self-negating.  It's not a conundrum.
Click to expand...



Why the modifier 'legitimate'? Who decides that? You?

Tracing the evolution of the human species will show that social structures developed from the natural rights. The lone wolf is a viable, all be it inefficient, social structure. These human structures became more complex over time, eventually evolving into things called civilized societies, but the quid pro quo was always the same. The governing social structure protected the individual rights in exchange for a degree of co-operation.

Are you denying that evolution ever occured?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Sallow said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not beyond me,
> 
> you admitted they were abstract and not provable.
> 
> you were done, at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that's true.  But I didn't, did I?  Because they're not!  *They're concrete, and I don't have to appeal to God.  They're embedded in nature.* *That's their immediate ORIGIN.*  Since you complain about links intended to save time, here it is again.
> ______________________________________
> 
> But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.
> 
> We know what they are. You know what they are.
> 
> They are self-evident because any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues. Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation.
> 
> Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.
> 
> All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."
> 
> The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man. They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment. It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.
> 
> They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!
> 
> 1. The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.
> 
> 2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.
> 
> 3. Freedom of religion/ideology.
> 
> 4. Freedom of expression.
> 
> 5. Freedom of movement.
> _____________________________________
> 
> It's your contention that rights are mere social constructs or perhaps the civil/political rights afforded by government that's the stuff of theory, abstraction, mamby-pamby philosophizing.
> 
> Once again, if what you say is true regarding the nature of rights, then prove it by showing how your underlying *relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition* about the reality of things is true.
> 
> But you just want to argue against straw men, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, in case some of you are imagining a contradiction in my posts, the essential aspects of liberty (3, 4, 5), as distinguished from those of life and property, are commonly or idiomatically referred to in the historical literature of natural law as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement.  They are not freedoms proper, but the inalienable rights of human liberty.  In other words, the are the natural, inalienable rights of exercising human liberty.    *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you cited is natural.
> 
> "Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.
Click to expand...



Yeah.  That's only like the 100th time that claim has been made on this thread.  Heard that.  Dealt with that.  Got the T-shirt.

You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.

What none of you on this thread have ever done is provide a rational justification for that claim.  There it is again suspended in midair.

What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?

Here's an easier one for you:  _how_ does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?  Note:  the question is not _what_ they are, respectively, though one must begin with the _what_, but _how_ one distinguishes the former from the latter.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?*
> 
> This is a chicken/egg question.
> 
> Since Government was invented to protect existing individual natural rights, natural rights existed first, and government came second. So natural rights existed without government.
> 
> Of course, some forms of government go postal on the governed and try to destroy natural rights, but they ultimately self destruct ... as forms of government.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  The role of a _legitimate_ government is to protect and promote the rights of all the people concerning their individual, inalienable natural rights to be sure, but (1) protecting and promoting something is not the same thing as (2) being the origin of something.  Note the categorical incongruity in that summary of your logic:  the first predicate denotes action, the second denotes being.  You're analogy is fallacious.  It's inherently contradictory and self-negating.  It's not a conundrum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why the modifier 'legitimate'? Who decides that? You?
> 
> Tracing the evolution of the human species will show that social structures developed from the natural rights. The lone wolf is a viable, all be it inefficient, social structure. These human structures became more complex over time, eventually evolving into things called civilized societies, but the quid pro quo was always the same. The governing social structure protected the individual rights in exchange for a degree of co-operation.
> 
> Are you denying that evolution ever occured?
Click to expand...


Because _you_ inserted the qualifier that "[g]overnment was invented to protect existing individual natural rights".  Hitler or Stalin certainly wouldn't have agreed with that.  I don't believe that Hitler's or Stalin's concept of government is legitimate or congruent with the form of government that would affect the protection of "existing individual natural rights".  Do you? 

As for the rest of your post, shifting to the pertinent dichotomic terms thereof, you're still confounding a similar ontological distinction:  the difference between mechanism and agency.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> read 1a over and over and over to yourself
> 
> do so, for a really long long time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets do that.
> 
> The cogency [quality or state of being convincing or persuasive] of evidence [that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief] that compels [force or drive] acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.
> 
> Damn, I was right.
Click to expand...


So easy, wuddnt it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> read 1a over and over and over to yourself
> 
> do so, for a really long long time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets do that.
> 
> The cogency [quality or state of being convincing or persuasive] of evidence [that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief] that compels [force or drive] acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.
> 
> Damn, I was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So easy, wuddnt it?
Click to expand...


I see your problem now, you only read the last few words part of a sentence, thus missing the entire meaning of the sentence.


----------



## percysunshine

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> False.  The role of a _legitimate_ government is to protect and promote the rights of all the people concerning their individual, inalienable natural rights to be sure, but (1) protecting and promoting something is not the same thing as (2) being the origin of something.  Note the categorical incongruity in that summary of your logic:  the first predicate denotes action, the second denotes being.  You're analogy is fallacious.  It's inherently contradictory and self-negating.  It's not a conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the modifier 'legitimate'? Who decides that? You?
> 
> Tracing the evolution of the human species will show that social structures developed from the natural rights. The lone wolf is a viable, all be it inefficient, social structure. These human structures became more complex over time, eventually evolving into things called civilized societies, but the quid pro quo was always the same. The governing social structure protected the individual rights in exchange for a degree of co-operation.
> 
> Are you denying that evolution ever occured?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because _you_ inserted the qualifier that "[g]overnment was invented to protect existing individual natural rights".  Hitler or Stalin certainly wouldn't have agreed with that.  I don't believe that Hitler's or Stalin's concept of government is legitimate or congruent with the form of government that would affect the protection of "existing individual natural rights".  Do you?
> 
> As for the rest of your post, shifting to the pertinent dichotomic terms thereof, you're still confounding a similar ontological distinction:  the difference between mechanism and agency.
Click to expand...


Actually, that was not a qualifier. It was a statement, backed by millennia of evolutionary change. Your assertion of a dichotomy of ontological distinction would benefit if you could provide an example. There was no conflation at all. I have provided the 'lone wolf' example as being before the 'we are all a team' example. The agency came later. You get the next 'at bat'. 



,


----------



## Sallow

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that's true.  But I didn't, did I?  Because they're not!  *They're concrete, and I don't have to appeal to God.  They're embedded in nature.* *That's their immediate ORIGIN.*  Since you complain about links intended to save time, here it is again.
> ______________________________________
> 
> But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.
> 
> We know what they are. You know what they are.
> 
> They are self-evident because any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues. Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation.
> 
> Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.
> 
> All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."
> 
> The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man. They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment. It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.
> 
> They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!
> 
> 1. The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.
> 
> 2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.
> 
> 3. Freedom of religion/ideology.
> 
> 4. Freedom of expression.
> 
> 5. Freedom of movement.
> _____________________________________
> 
> It's your contention that rights are mere social constructs or perhaps the civil/political rights afforded by government that's the stuff of theory, abstraction, mamby-pamby philosophizing.
> 
> Once again, if what you say is true regarding the nature of rights, then prove it by showing how your underlying *relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition* about the reality of things is true.
> 
> But you just want to argue against straw men, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, in case some of you are imagining a contradiction in my posts, the essential aspects of liberty (3, 4, 5), as distinguished from those of life and property, are commonly or idiomatically referred to in the historical literature of natural law as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement.  They are not freedoms proper, but the inalienable rights of human liberty.  In other words, the are the natural, inalienable rights of exercising human liberty.    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you cited is natural.
> 
> "Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That's only like the 100th time that claim has been made on this thread.  Heard that.  Dealt with that.  Got the T-shirt.
> 
> You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.
> 
> What none of you on this thread have ever done is provide a rational justification for that claim.  There it is again suspended in midair.
> 
> What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?
> 
> Here's an easier one for you:  _how_ does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?  Note:  the question is not _what_ they are, respectively, though one must begin with the _what_, but _how_ one distinguishes the former from the latter.
Click to expand...


There's no argument really.

You guys have to rely on esoteric constructs which have little or no meaning in the real world.

"Rights" aren't even universal and differ between human cultures.

The fact that this country had slavery absolutely destroys your argument. Even moreso that this country participated in torture in the modern age.

Governments are human constructs set up to protect human rights. But even that construct doesn't work out all the time. If right were "natural"? That simply wouldn't be the case.


----------



## Traditionalist

They exist, but the government is there to protect them through the rule of law. However, the government can just as easily take them away, so that is why the government must be accountable to an active, engaged citizenry.


----------



## Sallow

Traditionalist said:


> *They exist,* but the government is there to protect them through the rule of law. However, the government can just as easily take them away, so that is why the government must be accountable to an active, engaged citizenry.



That's the only part of this post I disagree with..

The rest is spot on.


----------



## TemplarKormac

GreenBean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a natural right.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windbag - *I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe* - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
Click to expand...


So, you plan to defeat him with a purely genetic argument?


----------



## GreenBean

TemplarKormac said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windbag - *I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe* - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you plan to defeat him with a purely genetic argument?
Click to expand...


Did you mean "generic" ?


----------



## midcan5

Still at I see. If any such thing as a 'natural right' existed I think you would have found it by now, let's face it rights are flexible things, man made things, and sometimes agreed upon and sometimes not. Just today I was reading a piece on the Abortion debate, I will link it below. Science mixed with politics made conception a person with rights in spite of the fact a great many conceptions end naturally. But facts don't really matter once someone assigns a right to anything at all. 

Do animals have rights in this natural scheme for surely a cow or chicken feels pain and is a living being. Can we then argue animals have rights and we should act accordingly. If humans have natural rights wouldn't most actions that affect them negatively be a denial of natural rights? If property is a right why do so many have so little and what can we do to correct that injustice? If a person has a right to no harm is not the lack of adequate healthcare a denial of their natural rights? Consider children as they form a place where the topic gets even stickier. Do children have a natural right to well being or are they simply destined to live in whatever situation they find themselves in - feel free to extrapolate on that question. 

"No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any." Friedrich Nietzsche 

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray

"Toleration was certainly the term of choice in matters of religious liberty before American independence. It had been made popular by writings such as John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration and copied into the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 by George Mason. Young James Madison objected, however, and when he succeeded in changing the word tolerance to the words free exercise, he advanced the cause of religious liberty by light-years. Tolerance is too condescending and uncertain. It is the gesture of the strong toward the weak, the government toward the citizenry, and the majority toward the minority. Free exercise, by contrast, is inalienable because it is the inalienable right of everyone, the minority no less than the majority, the weak as well as the poor, and the citizens just as much as the government."  Os Guinness

"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. "  Julius Caesar 


"God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul "Conservative evangelicals didnt always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.'  By Jamelle Bouie

Hobby Lobby and contraception: How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that's true.  But I didn't, did I?  Because they're not!  *They're concrete, and I don't have to appeal to God.  They're embedded in nature.* *That's their immediate ORIGIN.*  Since you complain about links intended to save time, here it is again.
> ______________________________________
> 
> But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.
> 
> We know what they are. You know what they are.
> 
> They are self-evident because any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues. Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation.
> 
> Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.
> 
> All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."
> 
> The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man. They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment. It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.
> 
> They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!
> 
> 1. The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.
> 
> 2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.
> 
> 3. Freedom of religion/ideology.
> 
> 4. Freedom of expression.
> 
> 5. Freedom of movement.
> _____________________________________
> 
> It's your contention that rights are mere social constructs or perhaps the civil/political rights afforded by government that's the stuff of theory, abstraction, mamby-pamby philosophizing.
> 
> Once again, if what you say is true regarding the nature of rights, then prove it by showing how your underlying *relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition* about the reality of things is true.
> 
> But you just want to argue against straw men, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW, in case some of you are imagining a contradiction in my posts, the essential aspects of liberty (3, 4, 5), as distinguished from those of life and property, are commonly or idiomatically referred to in the historical literature of natural law as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement.  They are not freedoms proper, but the inalienable rights of human liberty.  In other words, the are the natural, inalienable rights of exercising human liberty.    *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you cited is natural.
> 
> "Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That's only like the 100th time that claim has been made on this thread.  Heard that.  Dealt with that.  Got the T-shirt.
> 
> You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.
> 
> What none of you on this thread have ever done is provide a rational justification for that claim.  There it is again suspended in midair.
> 
> What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?
> 
> Here's an easier one for you:  _how_ does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?  Note:  the question is not _what_ they are, respectively, though one must begin with the _what_, but _how_ one distinguishes the former from the latter.
Click to expand...


You have to admit though, it's fairly entertaining to watch these types try to undo 100s, maybe 1,000's of years of philosophical layering and understanding by making sophomoric claims.


----------



## dblack

midcan5 said:


> Still at I see. If any such thing as a 'natural right' existed I think you would have found it by now ...



Is that really how you think of abstract concepts like freedom and rights? Like physical quantities that will be 'found'? Or are you just playing the demagogue for rhetorical flourish?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NYcarbineer said:


> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.



So, you're going to go the GT route of everything is abstract? That's fine. Revert to page 1, start reading then come back.


----------



## NYcarbineer

This debate always reminds me for some reason of the old joke about the difference between theory and reality:

A young boy went to his father and asked, "Dad, what's the difference 
between theory and reality?"

"Well, son, the best way to explain this is a practical exercise. Go ask 
your Mom if she'd sleep with a stranger a million dollars and come tell me
her answer."

The boy returned and said, " She said she would, Dad." "OK," replied the 
father, "Go ask your sister the same question." 

The boy returned and said that his sister also answered yes to the 
question and then asked his Dad, "What's this got to do with theory and 
reality?"

"It's simple, son. In theory, we're millionaires.

In reality, we live with a couple of sluts."


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> "Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.


oh, the delicious irony!


----------



## dcraelin

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 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.



also in declaration right after those words are these "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".  



TheOldSchool said:


> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights



that's why we have to determine what the consent of the governed is, and Jefferson tells how he wants to in pic I post below.  



Two Thumbs said:


> no government = strongest rule = tyranny
> to much government = elitist rule = tyranny


very wise post





http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're going to go the GT route of everything is abstract? That's fine. Revert to page 1, start reading then come back.
Click to expand...


No thats still a stupid interpretation. 

Saying rights are abstract =\= saying EVERYTHING is abstract. 

No wonder the conversation goes nowhere. Youre forced to be dishonest to appease your lack of wisdom. 

I forgive you of your trespasses for you know not how you stretch.


----------



## Sallow

GreenBean said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windbag - *I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe* - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you plan to defeat him with a purely genetic argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you mean "generic" ?
Click to expand...


Please bear in mind this is the clean debate zone and personal attacks are frowned upon.


----------



## Sallow

TakeAStepBack said:


> "Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.
> 
> 
> 
> oh, the delicious irony!
Click to expand...


Except it's not ironic.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

If you can not see how it's ironic in conjunction with your other posts about natural rights, I do not think it can even be explained to you. It's really funny though! Thanks!


----------



## NYcarbineer

TakeAStepBack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're going to go the GT route of everything is abstract? That's fine. Revert to page 1, start reading then come back.
Click to expand...


What is abstract is abstract.  I don't have to read the entire thread to know I'm right.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

lmao. Sure thing!


----------



## G.T.

I wouldnt recommend reading the thread back. Its a few users carrying a conversation cordially mixed with take a step and qwb repeating the "im teh smawter den everyone of evaaaa u just dont get it" meme. 

Snooze fest.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.


----------



## G.T.

Yea bro.

Cuz saying the concept of rights is abstract is the ssme as saying EVERYTHING is abstract.

You got it! Thats no leap.


----------



## percysunshine

Has anyone else noticed that there are exactly 666 replies to this thread?

Oops...


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> Yea bro.
> 
> Cuz saying the concept of rights is abstract is the ssme as saying EVERYTHING is abstract.
> 
> You got it! Thats no leap.



Even perception is abstract. So if we can not find any core tenet in ontology within the parameters of man's reason, which is the essence of both natural law and natural rights, then yes. It is. And the ability to form a cogent, mutual understanding of what these things refer to, why we, as humans, have played this philosophical "game" for hundreds of years, and what we've concluded, is lost.


Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you plan to defeat him with a purely genetic argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean "generic" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please bear in mind this is the clean debate zone and personal attacks are frowned upon.
Click to expand...


So are non-contributary posts.


----------



## Listening

Traditionalist said:


> They exist, but the government is there to protect them through the rule of law. However, the government can just as easily take them away, so that is why the government must be accountable to an active, engaged citizenry.



Whether or not "they exist" is not really an issue.  You can't put a meter on them and you can't titrate them. 

Their existence has been proven at one level (but then...even only if people subscribe to the same definitions.

What really validates them is people's dedication to them.  Which has somewhat been shown by this thread.  They really do serve as a basis for people's (including mine) reality.

If you hold to the notion, then you really have a framework from which to approach the issues of government and society.  You are almost obligated to stay within certain boundaires to maintain that framework.  Failure to do so creates some pretty difficult internal conflict.

People can say they don't exist (and they do), but that won't change how we behave when it comes to ideology.

Those who think they can proceed by avoiding such an ideology have given us the mess we have today.


----------



## Listening

NYcarbineer said:


> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.



No one has to prove they exist.  

Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.


----------



## Sallow

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea bro.
> 
> Cuz saying the concept of rights is abstract is the ssme as saying EVERYTHING is abstract.
> 
> You got it! Thats no leap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even perception is abstract. So if we can not find any core tenet in ontology within the parameters of man's reason, which is the essence of both natural law and natural rights, then yes. It is. And the ability to form a cogent, mutual understanding of what these things refer to, why we, as humans, have played this philosophical "game" for hundreds of years, and what we've concluded, is lost.
> 
> 
> *Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.*
Click to expand...


That's a huge logical leap.

Which places this "argument" squarely all over the place.


----------



## NYcarbineer

TakeAStepBack said:


> Nothing is real, everything is permitted.



Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to prove they exist.
> 
> Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
Click to expand...


Which proves nothing.

The same can be said for the "natural" right to rule.

People fight for that too.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NYcarbineer said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
Click to expand...


Cogito ergo sum?


----------



## percysunshine

NYcarbineer said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
Click to expand...


A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

percysunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.
> 
> I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.
Click to expand...


Instinct!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Listening said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to prove they exist.
> 
> Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
Click to expand...


Then I'm exactly right.  They only exist as ideas or opinions.  There is nothing 'natural' about them.  They are not God given.  

They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.


----------



## Sallow

percysunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.
> 
> I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.
Click to expand...


That's not a right.


----------



## G.T.

Of course things being abstract does not lead to the conclusion that everything is permitted, first off. Second off, within the parameters of "mans reason" is not EVERYTHING.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NYcarbineer said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to prove they exist.
> 
> Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I'm exactly right.  They only exist as ideas or opinions.  There is nothing 'natural' about them.  They are not God given.
> 
> They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.
Click to expand...


So, life is an idea? 
Cogito ergo sum?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> Of course things being abstract does not lead to the conclusion that everything is permitted, first off. Second off, within the parameters of "mans reason" is not EVERYTHING.



Sure it is. Without reason this conversation ceases immediately. Nothing is real, everything is permitted.


----------



## NYcarbineer

percysunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.
> 
> I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.
Click to expand...


Since wolves starve to death all the time, that 'right' as you would call it only exists as an opinion.  You are rendering the term meaningless,

mostly because you know you're wrong.

By your logic, humans have the natural right to kill and eat other humans, and in fact in our long history that was probably fairly common.  By your logic they would also have the natural right to steal food from other humans.  

When did those 'natural rights' as you would call them stop being 'natural'?


----------



## Sallow

We should agree, first..what are "rights"?



> Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
> 
> Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]
> <snip>
> Natural rights versus legal rights
> painting of a dark gray skies with trees and water, and a human image, flying, with arms outstretched
> According to some views, certain rights derive from God or Nature
> Main article: Natural and legal rights
> 
> Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
> Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.
> Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.

And that "government" is wholly not necessary.

I dispute that contention.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

You're several pages late, dude. been there, done that. won the stuffed animal over it.


----------



## G.T.

Without reason nothing ceases to exist except for reason. And reason can make conclusions based on physical facts. It cannot in regard to rights. They are an abstract manifestation of mans reason. Thek being abstract does not indeed mean everything is abstract and nothing is real. Thats a cop out to having to prove rights exist, because it cannot be done.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to prove they exist.
> 
> Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'm exactly right.  They only exist as ideas or opinions.  There is nothing 'natural' about them.  They are not God given.
> 
> They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, life is an idea?
> Cogito ergo sum?
Click to expand...




What say you? Is life an opinion or an idea? You gonna go full "abstract" on this one? Or are you going to concede you either aren't sure whats going on, or aren't sure whats going on?


----------



## NYcarbineer

TakeAStepBack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is real, everything is permitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cogito ergo sum?
Click to expand...


So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,

and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.


----------



## percysunshine

Sallow said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.
> 
> I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a right.
Click to expand...


It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> Without reason nothing ceases to exist except for reason. And reason can make conclusions based on physical facts. It cannot in regard to rights. They are an abstract manifestation of mans reason. Thek being abstract does not indeed mean everything is abstract and nothing is real. Thats a cop out to having to prove rights exist, because it cannot be done.



Without reason, you do not have the mental power to form judgments, conclusions or inferences. You're left with nothing but instinct. Which means the conversation is over. Which means nothing is real, because the only real we know is in defining it through reason/logical deductions.

The natural right to life is real. This has already been gone over ad nauseum.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NYcarbineer said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cogito ergo sum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,
> 
> and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.
Click to expand...


So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?

Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?


----------



## G.T.

No, rights being abstract do not mean everything is abstract or even that all of reason is abstract either. Youre taking liberties with logic that do not exist as a cop out because you cant lay out a logicAl proof for rights existing in nature.

Ya cant. Ya wont. Ya havent.

Instinct is not rights.
ability to act....is not rights.

Facts. 

You fail.


----------



## NYcarbineer

percysunshine said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.
> 
> I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.
Click to expand...


Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?

I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cogito ergo sum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,
> 
> and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?
> 
> Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?
Click to expand...

nope that is illogical. You just tried to pass off ability as right, again.

Thats been debunked. Long time ago. Thank you come again.

Living does not equal a riht to live anymore than killing is a right to kill....but what you just said tries to say so. Fail.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

I've done it on this very page! You just insist that you're right, because you want to believe, I dont know, that you're philosophically groundbreaking? It's silly!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

So there is no natural right to life. Wow. Someone should inform the entirety of man. We have a ground breaker!!!!


----------



## Sallow

percysunshine said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.
> 
> I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.
Click to expand...


It's not a right.

The rabbit doesn't recognize it as a right.
The wolf doesn't recognize it as a right.

Eating is a function.

You don't eat..you die.

And not because some force outside yourself will kill you.

Rights are a legal concept.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> So there is no natural right to life. Wow. Someone should inform the entirety of man. We have a ground breaker!!!!



Nope...  *XXXXXX*

We naturally are born.
we naturally live.

That does not make the leap to either being a right.

Thats taking liberties with logic that do not exist.  *XXXXXX*


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Wow, man. We have a lot of true intellectual ground breakers. Here. These guys have singlehand overturned hundreds of years of western philosophy in one fell swoop!!!

This is truly amazing!


----------



## Sallow

TakeAStepBack said:


> Wow, man. We have a lot of true intellectual ground breakers. Here. These guys have singlehand overturned hundreds of years of western philosophy in one fell swoop!!!
> 
> This is truly amazing!



Except that's not what's being done.

This is an old debate..and hardly settled.

Part and parcel with philosophy is constant debate.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?


----------



## percysunshine

Yet the question is whether natural rights exist with, or without, government.

In an abstract, logical way, the question can be reduced to:

Can 'A" exist without 'B' ?

In a causal universe, where A exists before the union of A and B, but B does not exist before the union of A and B, it can be shown that A can exist without B, but B cannot exist without A.

So maybe the debate centers around the definition of 'natural'. The definition I am using can exclude humans. If someone choses to define the word 'natural' as always including humans who act in groups, then we might disagree on a few things.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to prove they exist.
> 
> Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which proves nothing.
> 
> The same can be said for the "natural" right to rule.
> 
> People fight for that too.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to prove.  You seemed to have missed that key point.

People can argue this the whole day long...but as long as people are willing to die for what they percieve to be natural rights....it does not matter if they are real or not.


----------



## Listening

NYcarbineer said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to prove they exist.
> 
> Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I'm exactly right.  They only exist as ideas or opinions.  There is nothing 'natural' about them.  They are not God given.
> 
> They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.
Click to expand...


Unless you are talking to God (or more to the point) he is  talking to you, you don't know if he gave them or not (if they exist at all).

Calling them natural is simply saying people will chose those rights (and have) over government and that anytime there is an issue of priority....the choice has been made already.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> We should agree, first..what are "rights"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
> 
> Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]
> <snip>
> Natural rights versus legal rights
> painting of a dark gray skies with trees and water, and a human image, flying, with arms outstretched
> According to some views, certain rights derive from God or Nature
> Main article: Natural and legal rights
> 
> Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
> Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.
> Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.
> 
> And that "government" is wholly not necessary.
> 
> I dispute that contention.
Click to expand...


Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?

That you need government to breath ?


----------



## Sallow

TakeAStepBack said:


> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?



You're asking several different questions here.

But I will try to unpack it.

There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.

That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.

And it works.

However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".


----------



## Listening

NYcarbineer said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cogito ergo sum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,
> 
> and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.
Click to expand...


Jefferson called out three of them.  He called them unalienable.  Was he wrong ?


----------



## percysunshine

Sallow said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a right.
> 
> The rabbit doesn't recognize it as a right.
> The wolf doesn't recognize it as a right.
> 
> Eating is a function.
> 
> You don't eat..you die.
> 
> And not because some force outside yourself will kill you.
> 
> Rights are a legal concept.
Click to expand...


Thus you are automatically defining 'natural rights' as a construct of government. Using that as a premise, there is not a debate. Maybe you can start with a premise where there is room for a debate. Otherwise...


----------



## dblack

percysunshine said:


> Thus you are automatically defining 'natural rights' as a construct of government. Using that as a premise, there is not a debate. Maybe you can start with a premise where there is room for a debate. Otherwise...



99% of this thread consists not of arguments, but squabbles over definitions.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking several different questions here.
> 
> But I will try to unpack it.
> 
> There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.
> 
> That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.
> 
> And it works.
> 
> However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".
Click to expand...


Ah...yes....

Then why did John Jay say that people give up some of their rights to form a government.....answer: to protect the rest of them.

Whether they existed or not from the start does not matter.  How people perceive them does.


----------



## Listening

dblack said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus you are automatically defining 'natural rights' as a construct of government. Using that as a premise, there is not a debate. Maybe you can start with a premise where there is room for a debate. Otherwise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 99% of this thread consists not of arguments, but squabbles over definitions.
Click to expand...


Which has been my contention all along when it comes to discussing political matters.  If people can agree on definitions, it seems that the rest works itself out.

Someone put forth HealthCare as a "right".  Then someone else says "A right is something available to all which requires nothing from anyone else for them to enjoy it".  These two don't match at all.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Oh, good grief!!!




The concept has been dispelled. This is amazing

One final question for the the governance worshipers before i unsubscribe. Do positive, or legal rights/laws have any basis in western society grounded in natural rights/laws? Or is it all the same?


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should agree, first..what are "rights"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
> 
> Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]
> <snip>
> Natural rights versus legal rights
> painting of a dark gray skies with trees and water, and a human image, flying, with arms outstretched
> According to some views, certain rights derive from God or Nature
> Main article: Natural and legal rights
> 
> Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
> Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.
> Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.
> 
> And that "government" is wholly not necessary.
> 
> I dispute that contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> That you need government to breath ?
Click to expand...


Breathing is not a right.

It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.

Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.

If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.

Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.

It's not a hard concept, really.


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking several different questions here.
> 
> But I will try to unpack it.
> 
> There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.
> 
> That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.
> 
> And it works.
> 
> However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...yes....
> 
> Then why did John Jay say that people give up some of their rights to form a government.....answer: to protect the rest of them.
> 
> Whether they existed or not from the start does not matter.  How people perceive them does.
Click to expand...


Ah yes what?

I am sure that folks like Timothy Treadwell and Christopher McCandless probably thought that the universe would recognize their "right" to life before they ventured out into the great wide open.

Guess what?

It didn't.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Oh, good grief!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept has been dispelled. This is amazing
> 
> One final question for the the governance worshipers before i unsubscribe. Do positive, or legal rights/laws have any basis in western society grounded in natural rights/laws? Or is it all the same?



Youve unsubscribed....left...were done....etc etc etc how many times now? Hold your own or leave. Your argument has no merit


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?



Ability=\= right.
existence =\= right.
instinct =\= right.
desire =\= right.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

SO you can not answer the question? Let someone else try and keep your bossiness to yourself. You do not get to tell me what to do, when to do it or how to decide WHEN I'm done. You have no arguement, other than semantics.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking several different questions here.
> 
> But I will try to unpack it.
> 
> There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.
> 
> That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.
> 
> And it works.
> 
> However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...yes....
> 
> Then why did John Jay say that people give up some of their rights to form a government.....answer: to protect the rest of them.
> 
> Whether they existed or not from the start does not matter.  How people perceive them does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes what?
> 
> I am sure that folks like Timothy Treadwell and Christopher McCandless probably thought that the universe would recognize their "right" to life before they ventured out into the great wide open.
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> It didn't.
Click to expand...


Why don't you stop making things up to argue against and address the post.

Do you disagree with Jay ?


----------



## G.T.

I didnt decide anything. Youbkeep quitting and saying youre leaving all by your lonesome. Im not typing it for you.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ability=\= right.
> existence =\= right.
> instinct =\= right.
> desire =\= right.
Click to expand...


You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should agree, first..what are "rights"?
> 
> 
> 
> The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.
> 
> And that "government" is wholly not necessary.
> 
> I dispute that contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> That you need government to breath ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Breathing is not a right.
> 
> It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.
> 
> Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.
> 
> If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.
> 
> Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.
> 
> It's not a hard concept, really.
Click to expand...


I'll repeat my question...

Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ability=\= right.
> existence =\= right.
> instinct =\= right.
> desire =\= right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.
Click to expand...


It most certainly answers the question. 

The answer is: NO.

your ability to live, and others inability to take your literal life, does not equal a "right" to your life. 

That is a stretch - taking liberties with logic and terms and their definitions. 

It is merely assering that an ability equals a right.


----------



## percysunshine

Do Natural Wrongs Exist Without Government?

Toss that one around the cranial command center for a while.

.


----------



## dblack

Listening said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus you are automatically defining 'natural rights' as a construct of government. Using that as a premise, there is not a debate. Maybe you can start with a premise where there is room for a debate. Otherwise...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 99% of this thread consists not of arguments, but squabbles over definitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has been my contention all along when it comes to discussing political matters.  If people can agree on definitions, it seems that the rest works itself out.
> 
> Someone put forth HealthCare as a "right".  Then someone else says "A right is something available to all which requires nothing from anyone else for them to enjoy it".  These two don't match at all.
Click to expand...


Yeah... and it's one kind of crazy to start into an argument without first clearly stating the premise. But what blows my mind is how often people will, after running smack into the fact that they're just using a different definition of some fundamental term, jump right back into the argument as though it's still valid - even though it's been recognized that they're simply talking about different things. I guess some people just like to duke it out, even if it's not making any particular sense.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Yes, dude. I'm fully aware that the proper definition of right completely and utterly escapes you. We have online dictionaries should you choose to consult one.


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> That you need government to breath ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breathing is not a right.
> 
> It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.
> 
> Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.
> 
> If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.
> 
> Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.
> 
> It's not a hard concept, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll repeat my question...
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
Click to expand...


I think I have.

Rights exist within a Society.

And governments are part and parcel with that.


----------



## G.T.

It is a dishonest position to say that IF a person does not believe that rights are natural, they then think that Governments are okay to take them away.

You can believe in basic rights as created by man - not nature - and also believe that governments have no place taking them away.

And those basic rights are also a matter of opinion. Fight for what you believe in. I believe men should have the right to life and persuit of happiness. Not because he is born with them. But because it is the best way forward for humans to coexist.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> Yes, dude. I'm fully aware that the proper definition of right completely and utterly escapes you. We have online dictionaries should you choose to consult one.



So are you asserting that a right is the ability to do something or arent you.....

Cuz um. Its not.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

semantics semantics semantics!


it's what is for dinner!!!


----------



## Sallow

dblack said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 99% of this thread consists not of arguments, but squabbles over definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has been my contention all along when it comes to discussing political matters.  If people can agree on definitions, it seems that the rest works itself out.
> 
> Someone put forth HealthCare as a "right".  *Then someone else says "A right is something available to all which requires nothing from anyone else for them to enjoy it".*  These two don't match at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... and it's one kind of crazy to start into an argument without first clearly stating the premise. But what blows my mind is how often people will, after running smack into the fact that they're just using a different definition of some fundamental term, jump right back into the argument as though it's still valid - even though it's been recognized that they're simply talking about different things. I guess some people just like to duke it out, even if it's not making any particular sense.
Click to expand...


That part of that post is not correct.

Even the right to liberty.

As you folks like to point out all the time, soldiers are constantly defending our freedom.

And while most may not see that, there really are people that work constantly to preserve the rights of people in this country.


----------



## dblack

Sallow said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has been my contention all along when it comes to discussing political matters.  If people can agree on definitions, it seems that the rest works itself out.
> 
> Someone put forth HealthCare as a "right".  *Then someone else says "A right is something available to all which requires nothing from anyone else for them to enjoy it".*  These two don't match at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... and it's one kind of crazy to start into an argument without first clearly stating the premise. But what blows my mind is how often people will, after running smack into the fact that they're just using a different definition of some fundamental term, jump right back into the argument as though it's still valid - even though it's been recognized that they're simply talking about different things. I guess some people just like to duke it out, even if it's not making any particular sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That part of that post is not correct.
> 
> Even the right to liberty.
> 
> As you folks like to point out all the time, soldiers are constantly defending our freedom.
> 
> And while most may not see that, there really are people that work constantly to preserve the rights of people in this country.
Click to expand...


You're conflating the _protection_ of a right, with its existence. Most here are. Indeed, you're probably, also like most here, _defining_ a right as synonymous with its status as a _protected_ right. That's where most of the confusion begins.


----------



## G.T.

TakeAStepBack said:


> semantics semantics semantics!
> 
> 
> it's what is for dinner!!!



Cop out cop out cop out.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Thankfully, it is a widely held understanding that that humans have certain natural rights. That is, of their human nature. They are of course, part of nature.

Here is a good debate for the "dont exist vs. the yes they do crowds.

https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/arena/do-natural-rights-exist

Natural Rights Come from Human Nature

When various skeptics question the soundness of the American political system, one of their targets is the idea of human nature. After all, the founders took their political philosophy mainly from John Locke, who thought human nature does exist and, based on what we know of it (and a few other evident matters), we can reach the conclusion that all human beings have certain rights. This is what is meant by holding that there are natural rights and that they are prelegal, not a creation of government.


Natural Rights Don't Exist

The doctrine of natural rights seems like a good deal for libertarians. If individuals have intrinsic and inviolable rights to their person and property, we can avoid the messiness of consequentialist reasoning and confidently claim that freedom is the objectively correct answer, regardless of any cultural context or government decree.
But natural rights are incapable of doing the philosophical work expected of them. The argument for such rights is weak, their consistent application would seriously undermine the market order, and a more robust case for freedom can be made on other grounds.
To put things bluntly: Natural rights theory is wrong, useless, and unnecessary.




read it all at the link.


----------



## Sallow

percysunshine said:


> Do Natural Wrongs Exist Without Government?
> 
> Toss that one around the cranial command center for a while.
> 
> .



Chicken of the sea.

Is it really chicken?

In the sea?

Really?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> semantics semantics semantics!
> 
> 
> it's what is for dinner!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cop out cop out cop out.
Click to expand...


I don't need to cop out. We've gone over it ad nauseam. You simply refuse to see it any other way than rights do not exist in nature. When pressed that mans reason is his natural state, you reject that, and move on to equating action, existent, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc, with not beig equal to a right. You're game is called semantics.

And i do bow to you. You played that sucker for pages
 without skipping a beat...or at least quick to change words around to match the game. It was well done.


have a great weekend, everyone.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you cited is natural.
> 
> "Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That's only like the 100th time that claim has been made on this thread.  Heard that.  Dealt with that.  Got the T-shirt.
> 
> You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.
> 
> What none of you on this thread have ever done is provide a rational justification for that claim.  There it is again suspended in midair.
> 
> What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?
> 
> Here's an easier one for you:  _how_ does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?  Note:  the question is not _what_ they are, respectively, though one must begin with the _what_, but _how_ one distinguishes the former from the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no argument really.
> 
> You guys have to rely on esoteric constructs which have little or no meaning in the real world.
> 
> "Rights" aren't even universal and differ between human cultures.
> 
> The fact that this country had slavery absolutely destroys your argument. Even moreso that this country participated in torture in the modern age.
> 
> Governments are human constructs set up to protect human rights. But even that construct doesn't work out all the time. If right were "natural"? That simply wouldn't be the case.
Click to expand...


Civil liberties vary, not rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Still at I see. If any such thing as a 'natural right' existed I think you would have found it by now,



I left the wreckage of 3 different people that thought they were smarter than nature in the ditch already, do you want to make it 4? 



midcan5 said:


> let's face it rights are flexible things, man made things, and sometimes agreed upon and sometimes not. Just today I was reading a piece on the Abortion debate, I will link it below. Science mixed with politics made conception a person with rights in spite of the fact a great many conceptions end naturally. But facts don't really matter once someone assigns a right to anything at all.



You are confusing rights and civil liberties. One you have ins spite of government, the other you only get if government gives it to you. Once you understand that fundamental difference you might be able to discuss the issues.



midcan5 said:


> Do animals have rights in this natural scheme for surely a cow or chicken feels pain and is a living being. Can we then argue animals have rights and we should act accordingly.



Yes.



midcan5 said:


> If humans have natural rights wouldn't most actions that affect them negatively be a denial of natural rights?



No.



midcan5 said:


> If property is a right why do so many have so little and what can we do to correct that injustice?



You are confusing natural rights to your body with real estate.



midcan5 said:


> If a person has a right to no harm is not the lack of adequate healthcare a denial of their natural rights?



Only if you think slavery is a right.



midcan5 said:


> Consider children as they form a place where the topic gets even stickier. Do children have a natural right to well being or are they simply destined to live in whatever situation they find themselves in - feel free to extrapolate on that question.



no one has a natural right to well being. If they did, there would be no disease.



midcan5 said:


> "No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any." Friedrich Nietzsche



Nietzsche argued that a superman had rights because he simply took them, while other people wanted someone to hand them over on a silver platter. 



midcan5 said:


> "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray
> 
> "Toleration was certainly the term of choice in matters of religious liberty before American independence. It had been made popular by writings such as John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration and copied into the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 by George Mason. Young James Madison objected, however, and when he succeeded in changing the word tolerance to the words free exercise, he advanced the cause of religious liberty by light-years. Tolerance is too condescending and uncertain. It is the gesture of the strong toward the weak, the government toward the citizenry, and the majority toward the minority. Free exercise, by contrast, is inalienable because it is the inalienable right of everyone, the minority no less than the majority, the weak as well as the poor, and the citizens just as much as the government."  Os Guinness
> 
> "Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. "  Julius Caesar
> 
> 
> "God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul "Conservative evangelicals didnt always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.'  By Jamelle Bouie
> 
> Hobby Lobby and contraception: How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.




I see you still have an unparallelled ability to post quotes that directly contradict the point you are trying to make. Have you considered taking a position, finding all the quotes that you  think support it, and then arguing the opposite without getting new  quotes? That would turn you over night from one of the most clueless  posters to one of the most insightful.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.  No one can prove they exist;  no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.



If you ignore the fact that I have done both you have a point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Without reason nothing ceases to exist except for reason. And reason can make conclusions based on physical facts. It cannot in regard to rights. They are an abstract manifestation of mans reason. Thek being abstract does not indeed mean everything is abstract and nothing is real. Thats a cop out to having to prove rights exist, because it cannot be done.



I already proved to you that you don't understand logic, calling it reason isn't going to suddenly make you a savant. Reason tells me that the sun revolves around the Earth, logic proves that reason is right, then you come along and declare yourself the winner of the debate because reason and logic prove you right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cogito ergo sum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,
> 
> and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.
Click to expand...


Do you think?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?
> 
> I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?
Click to expand...


Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones? 

See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking several different questions here.
> 
> But I will try to unpack it.
> 
> There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.
> 
> That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.
> 
> And it works.
> 
> However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".
Click to expand...


The funny thing is that, if you are correct that life is not a natural right, you would be able to prove it by pointing to the government agency that grants people life. Yet you still insist that I have to prove I am right when I insist that no one granted me the right to life, that it exists simply because I exist.

Why is that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should agree, first..what are "rights"?
> 
> 
> 
> The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.
> 
> And that "government" is wholly not necessary.
> 
> I dispute that contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> That you need government to breath ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Breathing is not a right.
> 
> It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.
> 
> Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.
> 
> If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.
> 
> Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.
> 
> It's not a hard concept, really.
Click to expand...


Does that mean you admit that rights exist without government?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breathing is not a right.
> 
> It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.
> 
> Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.
> 
> If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.
> 
> Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.
> 
> It's not a hard concept, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat my question...
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have.
> 
> Rights exist within a Society.
> 
> And governments are part and parcel with that.
Click to expand...


Society is not government. The question is, do rights exist without government. The answer is yes.


----------



## bluesman

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> *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.*
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> *Now, if China chooses to be communist*....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.








"We hold these truths to be self evident...".   That  means the people who put their asses on the line and signed the Declaration of Independence were making that statement.  They made it clear that they specifically hold the truths to be self evident.  



_When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

*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.  *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*..._


The context of the statement cannot be ignored.  The violation of basic rights is the reason or in this case the justification for the Declaration of Independence.   Of course the founders of the Chinese government didn't make the same kind of statements.  That is why we use China as an example when we think of a place without basic freedoms.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> It is a dishonest position to say that IF a person does not believe that rights are natural, they then think that Governments are okay to take them away.
> 
> You can believe in basic rights as created by man - not nature - and also believe that governments have no place taking them away.
> 
> And those basic rights are also a matter of opinion. Fight for what you believe in. I believe men should have the right to life and persuit of happiness. Not because he is born with them. But because it is the best way forward for humans to coexist.



What possible justification is there for telling the government they cannot take something that they are the source of?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, dude. I'm fully aware that the proper definition of right completely and utterly escapes you. We have online dictionaries should you choose to consult one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you asserting that a right is the ability to do something or arent you.....
> 
> Cuz um. Its not.
Click to expand...


The ability to do something is an expression of rights.


----------



## NYcarbineer

TakeAStepBack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cogito ergo sum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,
> 
> and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?
> 
> Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?
Click to expand...


It's not a 'right' it's a state of being.


----------



## NYcarbineer

TakeAStepBack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
> Is my life transferable to someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ability=\= right.
> existence =\= right.
> instinct =\= right.
> desire =\= right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.
Click to expand...


What is or isn't a right is subjective.  To state that something is a right is merely one side of an argument;  it is not the statement of some inarguable fact.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, it was an argument for  God given equal rights for all men.  It was made against the counter-argument that the King possessed his own God given right, that of absolute power.  Because the King and his supporters claimed that God was on their side,

Jefferson and the colonists logically argued that, no, God was their side.  

The only inarguable fact that followed was that the Americans won the war.


----------



## dblack

NYcarbineer said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ability=\= right.
> existence =\= right.
> instinct =\= right.
> desire =\= right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is or isn't a right is subjective.
Click to expand...


How are you defining "right"?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,
> 
> and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?
> 
> Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a 'right' it's a state of being.
Click to expand...


You are correct, rights are a state of being.


----------



## NYcarbineer

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is or isn't a right is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are you defining "right"?
Click to expand...


As a legally protected right.  What you think is a right, or what you think should be a right, if not protected by law,  is not a right.

For example, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.  Before the amendment, it was not a right, for women.  Women were not born with the right to vote, as some 'natural' condition.  Nor were men, for that matter.


----------



## percysunshine

So, let's go down a completely different path with the question of the day. In the animal kingdom, the 'ant' could not survive without the 'colony'. So the natural rights of the 'ant' could not exist without the government provided by the ant colony.


Right...?

.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?
> 
> I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?
> 
> See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?
Click to expand...


I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy.  The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.


----------



## percysunshine

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?
> 
> I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?
> 
> See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy.  The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.
Click to expand...


This is what happens when I do not read all the posts in a thread. I miss something.

Be flexible, now it is ants and bees....chuckle

.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Let's remember, humans as a species have always been a social animal, therefore, we have always existed under some sort of government, even down to the level of family groups.

Therefore, human government either predated human 'rights', or, they evolved concurrently.


----------



## NYcarbineer

percysunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?
> 
> See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy.  The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what happens when I do not read all the posts in a thread. I miss something.
> 
> Be flexible, now it is ants and bees....chuckle
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You brought up wolves and rabbits.  Do wolfpacks have a government?  Yes they do.  Does the government of the wolfpack decide which wolves have which rights, and to what extent?  Yes they do.


----------



## dblack

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is or isn't a right is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a legally protected right.  What you think is a right, or what you think should be a right, if not protected by law,  is not a right.
Click to expand...


Well, there you go. By that definition, certainly rights "come from" government - or at least from whatever authority is charged with protecting them. 

My understanding is that the rights discussed in the OP, the 'un(in)alienable rights' referenced by Jefferson in the DOI, meant those freedoms we are empowered to exercise _before_ governments come into the picture. Sort of the hypothetical 'starting place', a person's ideal situation before they 'enter' society. He then sights securing those rights as the justification for creating governments - to mitigate our rights in a social context. I'd argue that this is a specific kind of freedom, objectively described and defined.



> For example, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.  Before the amendment, it was not a right, for women.  Women were not born with the right to vote, as some 'natural' condition.  Nor were men, for that matter.



Yeah. So that's more what we're talking about when we refer to 'civil rights', those rights we protect with government, which isn't necessarily all of our inalienable rights, but a subset. These rights would be subjective, depending on the specific society and government in question.


----------



## percysunshine

NYcarbineer said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy.  The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what happens when I do not read all the posts in a thread. I miss something.
> 
> Be flexible, now it is ants and bees....chuckle
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You brought up wolves and rabbits.  Do wolfpacks have a government?  Yes they do.  Does the government of the wolfpack decide which wolves have which rights, and to what extent?  Yes they do.
Click to expand...


But the lone wolf must have been first, or there would never be a pack.

If we buy into the analogy, anyway.


----------



## percysunshine

NYcarbineer said:


> Let's remember, humans as a species have always been a social animal, therefore, we have always existed under some sort of government, even down to the level of family groups.
> 
> Therefore, human government either predated human 'rights', or, they evolved concurrently.



Family groups have always been a feature of human evolution? And the family group is the most basic and simple form of government?

An interesting proposition.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is or isn't a right is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a legally protected right.  What you think is a right, or what you think should be a right, if not protected by law,  is not a right.
> 
> For example, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.  Before the amendment, it was not a right, for women.  Women were not born with the right to vote, as some 'natural' condition.  Nor were men, for that matter.
Click to expand...


I do not think of voting as a natural right because, as you pointed out, it is impossible to vote unless you have permission to vote from someone else. When you can point to the guy that gives me permission to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you can claim that those are not natural rights. Until you do, you are the one that is confused.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

percysunshine said:


> So, let's go down a completely different path with the question of the day. In the animal kingdom, the 'ant' could not survive without the 'colony'. So the natural rights of the 'ant' could not exist without the government provided by the ant colony.
> 
> 
> Right...?
> 
> .



Which ants?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?
> 
> I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?
> 
> See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy.  The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.
Click to expand...


The other poster was making a point that was on topic, yours was all about proving how adept you are at saying things that aren't on point. I can do that longer than you because I have a store of trivia that comes from reading thousands of books.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Let's remember, humans as a species have always been a social animal, therefore, we have always existed under some sort of government, even down to the level of family groups.
> 
> Therefore, human government either predated human 'rights', or, they evolved concurrently.



Remember, every rule has an exception.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you defining "right"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a legally protected right.  What you think is a right, or what you think should be a right, if not protected by law,  is not a right.
> 
> For example, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.  Before the amendment, it was not a right, for women.  Women were not born with the right to vote, as some 'natural' condition.  Nor were men, for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think of voting as a natural right because, as you pointed out, it is impossible to vote unless you have permission to vote from someone else. When you can point to the guy that gives me permission to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you can claim that those are not natural rights. Until you do, you are the one that is confused.
Click to expand...


Voting falls under the category of pursuit of happiness.


----------



## percysunshine

NYcarbineer said:


> Voting falls under the category of pursuit of happiness.



The long lines have always annoyed me. Has anyone built an App for this?

.


----------



## NYcarbineer

percysunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's remember, humans as a species have always been a social animal, therefore, we have always existed under some sort of government, even down to the level of family groups.
> 
> Therefore, human government either predated human 'rights', or, they evolved concurrently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Family groups have always been a feature of human evolution? And the family group is the most basic and simple form of government?
> 
> An interesting proposition.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The apes and monkeys are almost all social, i.e., living in groups as opposed to being solitary - I think orangutans might be an exception.  Within those social structures there is governance.  There were systems of laws in the most primitive of human societies, even if they were unwritten.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a legally protected right.  What you think is a right, or what you think should be a right, if not protected by law,  is not a right.
> 
> For example, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.  Before the amendment, it was not a right, for women.  Women were not born with the right to vote, as some 'natural' condition.  Nor were men, for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think of voting as a natural right because, as you pointed out, it is impossible to vote unless you have permission to vote from someone else. When you can point to the guy that gives me permission to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you can claim that those are not natural rights. Until you do, you are the one that is confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Voting falls under the category of pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...


So does not voting, what's your point?


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breathing is not a right.
> 
> It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.
> 
> Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.
> 
> If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.
> 
> Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.
> 
> It's not a hard concept, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat my question...
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I have.
> 
> Rights exist within a Society.
> 
> And governments are part and parcel with that.
Click to expand...


Could you please post something cogent....at least once ?

So there is no example of a society without a government ?


----------



## Listening

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



This is the OP.

While I have appreciated the debate that has gone on here, it is quite clear that some themes are emerging.

Some claim that if you were in a forest, by yourself, in no contact with anyone, you would have rights.

Others say, such a person has no right because none are needed.  Hence, if they are not needed, they don't exist.

Some say that once this person comes in contact with someone, then there is the potential for "issues" such as this someone might be bigger and throw the guy out of his cabin (loss of property).  His "natural" rights were violated.

Others say that he had no rights and they were not violated because they had not yet been granted.

And still some ask, even if he had them....so what ?  They were violated.

This is what Benson was saying.  This guy in the woods gets together with others in the woods and they form a pact to collectively protect each other.  Is that a government ?  Who knows.  

The point being that as Benson (and Jay) said, people join to protect rights (or form them as some claim).

In the end, you'll never prove it one way or the other.  What is important is that the outcome of adopting one philosophy or another is  worth considering.

Those of you in the "government forms them" category..answer this....if the government decides to shoot everyone with red hair (thus depriving them of their right to life)....or just shoot  them in the ass....what is your take on that.  Would you rebel ?   And if so, using what justification ?


----------



## G.T.

Ill respond to you, listening, because you dont devolve into the minutia. 

I believe rights are a human construct - not natural; however, i also feel that certain ones (based on our ability to reason) are obviously best to consider sacrosanct.

You can arrive at those based on your observation of coexistance, and also your own cognition. 

So what is the actionabke difference of whether i feel they are "natural" or not ---since i feel theyre sacrosanct?

Truth. Thats all. The "outcome" of considering their source one way or the other should not be the GUIDE toward belief in the truth. The truth alone unbiased is all that matters.

Im not afraid that because i dont feel these rights are natural that men will become by and large too complacent to fight for them. But even if they DO - my unwant of that outcome shoukd still be irrelevant to the truth.


----------



## Foxfyre

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



I haven't read the entire thread, but I have to quarrel a wee bit with this one.  The Founders knew that there was evil in the world and that we live in a world in which the biggest, baddest, strongest makes the rules and assigns the rights the people would have.  Those holding such power would infringe on, deny, trample on the rights of the people.

 Their intent was that we have a federal government that would recognize natural rights and be given ability to 'secure' them, i.e. prevent anyone from infringing, denying, trampling on, or otherwise taking them away.  And once that was done, the people would then enjoy the blessings of liberty so that they could govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

In the simplest terms, the Founders viewed as a natural right anything that required no contribution or participation by others.  And that would include the ability to do with one's legally and ethically acquired property whatever the person wished to do that violated nobody else's rights.


----------



## G.T.

Ill tell ya somthing else too, listening. 

I apologize for the thread devolving. 

I responded in kind to each person who had to add snivveling remarks like "apparently some ppl are such such".....or " ugh i guess its soo over their heads," etc.

I dont like when those elements are introduced into a previously cordial convo, and so instead of ignoring it i responded with same and for that i apologize.


----------



## Listening

G.T. said:


> Ill respond to you, listening, because you dont devolve into the minutia.
> 
> I believe rights are a human construct - not natural; however, i also feel that certain ones (based on our ability to reason) are obviously best to consider sacrosanct.
> 
> You can arrive at those based on your observation of coexistance, and also your own cognition.
> 
> So what is the actionabke difference of whether i feel they are "natural" or not ---since i feel theyre sacrosanct?
> 
> Truth. Thats all. The "outcome" of considering their source one way or the other should not be the GUIDE toward belief in the truth. The truth alone unbiased is all that matters.
> 
> Im not afraid that because i dont feel these rights are natural that men will become by and large too complacent to fight for them. But even if they DO - my unwant of that outcome shoukd still be irrelevant to the truth.



Truth is also something of a construct.

You might love your wife.  But you could not prove it to me directly (by titrating something).

Thanks for the reasoned response.


----------



## G.T.

Yea for sure - some truth is a construct.....but im not a believer of a subjective reality when it comes to certain things that i feel we can observe as concrete. Such as concrete itself.  But it still has merit to seek it out (truth) whatever it is.....until life's end in my opinion.


----------



## dcraelin

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dcraelin-albums-founders-with-quotes-picture6508-carlin3.png


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the entire thread, but I have to quarrel a wee bit with this one.  The Founders knew that there was evil in the world and that we live in a world in which the biggest, baddest, strongest makes the rules and assigns the rights the people would have.  Those holding such power would infringe on, deny, trample on the rights of the people.
> 
> Their intent was that we have a federal government that would recognize natural rights and be given ability to 'secure' them, i.e. prevent anyone from infringing, denying, trampling on, or otherwise taking them away.  And once that was done, the people would then enjoy the blessings of liberty so that they could govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> In the simplest terms, the Founders viewed as a natural right anything that required no contribution or participation by others.  And that would include the ability to do with one's legally and ethically acquired property whatever the person wished to do that violated nobody else's rights.
Click to expand...


Foxy...it's good to hear from you.

I am not sure what the quarrel is (with the thread).  It's represented on both sides.

However, the real question is whether or not such rights (if they exist) are meaningful unless they are protected (supposedly by government).  If they are not meaningful...do they exist.

This keeps coming back to almost a chicken and egg syndrom.  

But, it is the outcome that I view as being important.

If government creates rights, they can take them too (and they do this often).

However, if you think rights come form government, then do you whine when they take them or do you suck on it.

If you think they are yours and the government is simply taking them....seems like you'd be more prone to take exception (maybe with a rifle) when they come for them.


----------



## Listening

G.T. said:


> Yea for sure - some truth is a construct.....but im not a believer of a subjective reality when it comes to certain things that i feel we can observe as concrete. Such as concrete itself.  But it still has merit to seek it out (truth) whatever it is.....until life's end in my opinion.



A bit of a digression, but a worthwhile one.

I agree with your final statement.

My question to you....what role do you have in protecting your rights ?


----------



## G.T.

Listening said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea for sure - some truth is a construct.....but im not a believer of a subjective reality when it comes to certain things that i feel we can observe as concrete. Such as concrete itself.  But it still has merit to seek it out (truth) whatever it is.....until life's end in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of a digression, but a worthwhile one.
> 
> I agree with your final statement.
> 
> My question to you....what role do you have in protecting your rights ?
Click to expand...


Id put it like this: 

I have a natural instinct to want to stay alive.
i realize i am not the toughest man on earth.
i believe living is worth while.
therefore - i believe in securing the right to life for myself and my fellow humans, even if it means self sacrifice and that last part (self sacrifice) is based purely on my empathy/emotions/love and not on reason.


----------



## G.T.

If i had no empathy - or "care" put bluntly - for others then i cant think of a logical reason to fight for anyones life but my own. 

Good thing nature/god/environment/or evolution (agnostic here) gave me empathy here or id have murdered my wife for getting the coffee order wrong today


----------



## Listening

dcraelin said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dcraelin-albums-founders-with-quotes-picture6508-carlin3.png



I am not going to mock you for quoting George.

I wish, however, I had the chance to mock George to his face.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Ill respond to you, listening, because you dont devolve into the minutia.
> 
> I believe rights are a human construct - not natural; however, i also feel that certain ones (based on our ability to reason) are obviously best to consider sacrosanct.
> 
> You can arrive at those based on your observation of coexistance, and also your own cognition.
> 
> So what is the actionabke difference of whether i feel they are "natural" or not ---since i feel theyre sacrosanct?
> 
> Truth. Thats all. The "outcome" of considering their source one way or the other should not be the GUIDE toward belief in the truth. The truth alone unbiased is all that matters.
> 
> Im not afraid that because i dont feel these rights are natural that men will become by and large too complacent to fight for them. But even if they DO - my unwant of that outcome shoukd still be irrelevant to the truth.



Let me use reason to show you the flaws in your position.

If rights do not exist outside the construct of government then government is the ultimate arbiter of rights. That means that any argument that centers around rights being sacrosanct would have to assume that governments themselves are sacrosanct. You are then faced with the paradox of arguing that it is possible to actually interfere with the source of something that cannot be interfered with. 

This is the same dilemma that Christians often face when they are confronted by a government that violates their rights. Romans 13 clearly tells them that God is the source of government, and that obeying the government is an extension of obeying God. Even today, many Christians have trouble with the idea that any rebellion against a government is ever justified.

Personally, I prefer to never assume that, simply because someone has power, that that power gives them a license to issue rules that negatively impact my life. Ultimately, that is what the consent of the governed is all about, we have the right to refuse to obey, and to actually fight, because government can be wrong.

That is why you cannot simultaneously argue that government is the source of rights and that people can fight for their rights when the government takes them away. You might have a hard time accepting the fact that your position is based on flawed logic, but it is. 

Your positions indefensible, rights cannot both come from a government we can fight and be sacrosanct. I will leave you to figure out where rights come from since you refuse to admit they come from anything other than government, yet insist they actually are more important than government.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Natural rights, inalienable rights, innate rights &#8211; all refer to the same fundamental fact of law: that to be human, sentient, and in possession of one&#8217;s own free will affords the individual the privileges and immunities necessary to secure his civil liberties. 

To be legitimate, therefore, government must acknowledge and respect these rights as mandated by the rule of law and as codified by the Constitution; and government forfeits its legitimacy and authority when it seeks to violate citizens&#8217; civil liberties in violation of the Constitution and its case law. 

Consequently, it is incumbent upon government &#8211; created by the people, representing the people, and acting at the behest of the people &#8211; to act in a manner that comports with the jurisprudence of the Founding Document; and failing to do so, subjects itself to attack in the courts by private citizens or classes of persons so adversely effected. 

Rights do indeed exist and are tangible, just as each individual exists and is tangible; the proof of this can be found in the words freely written and spoken, the art and ideas freely created and expressed, and the people as they freely assemble to engage their government in the venue of political, social, and legal discourse.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Ill tell ya somthing else too, listening.
> 
> I apologize for the thread devolving.
> 
> I responded in kind to each person who had to add snivveling remarks like "apparently some ppl are such such".....or " ugh i guess its soo over their heads," etc.
> 
> I dont like when those elements are introduced into a previously cordial convo, and so instead of ignoring it i responded with same and for that i apologize.



You don't like it when people care about something unless they agree with your self contradictory position? Tough.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dcraelin said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dcraelin-albums-founders-with-quotes-picture6508-carlin3.png



Yet he based an entire routine around people telling him he had no right to say certain things.

Interesting.


On the other hand, I understand using comedy to make a point, a concept that seems to have flown right over your head.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the entire thread, but I have to quarrel a wee bit with this one.  The Founders knew that there was evil in the world and that we live in a world in which the biggest, baddest, strongest makes the rules and assigns the rights the people would have.  Those holding such power would infringe on, deny, trample on the rights of the people.
> 
> Their intent was that we have a federal government that would recognize natural rights and be given ability to 'secure' them, i.e. prevent anyone from infringing, denying, trampling on, or otherwise taking them away.  And once that was done, the people would then enjoy the blessings of liberty so that they could govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> In the simplest terms, the Founders viewed as a natural right anything that required no contribution or participation by others.  And that would include the ability to do with one's legally and ethically acquired property whatever the person wished to do that violated nobody else's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy...it's good to hear from you.
> 
> I am not sure what the quarrel is (with the thread).  It's represented on both sides.
> 
> However, the real question is whether or not such rights (if they exist) are meaningful unless they are protected (supposedly by government).  If they are not meaningful...do they exist.
> 
> This keeps coming back to almost a chicken and egg syndrom.
> 
> But, it is the outcome that I view as being important.
> 
> If government creates rights, they can take them too (and they do this often).
> 
> However, if you think rights come form government, then do you whine when they take them or do you suck on it.
> 
> If you think they are yours and the government is simply taking them....seems like you'd be more prone to take exception (maybe with a rifle) when they come for them.
Click to expand...


Of course they have meaning even if they aren't protected by the government. Even the idiots that argue that government actually creates rights believe that, there problem is that they don't see how their position uses circular reasoning to destroy itself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea for sure - some truth is a construct.....but im not a believer of a subjective reality when it comes to certain things that i feel we can observe as concrete. Such as concrete itself.  But it still has merit to seek it out (truth) whatever it is.....until life's end in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of a digression, but a worthwhile one.
> 
> I agree with your final statement.
> 
> My question to you....what role do you have in protecting your rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Id put it like this:
> 
> I have a natural instinct to want to stay alive.
> i realize i am not the toughest man on earth.
> i believe living is worth while.
> therefore - i believe in securing the right to life for myself and my fellow humans, even if it means self sacrifice and that last part (self sacrifice) is based purely on my empathy/emotions/love and not on reason.
Click to expand...



In other words, you believe you have a right to life even if the government tries to tell you otherwise. In other words, rights exist without government, even if you refuse to call them natural.


----------



## G.T.

Qwb this is the clean debate zone. 

See ya dude. 

And your if thans in paragraph one are not true. 


But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.


----------



## Foxfyre

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the entire thread, but I have to quarrel a wee bit with this one.  The Founders knew that there was evil in the world and that we live in a world in which the biggest, baddest, strongest makes the rules and assigns the rights the people would have.  Those holding such power would infringe on, deny, trample on the rights of the people.
> 
> Their intent was that we have a federal government that would recognize natural rights and be given ability to 'secure' them, i.e. prevent anyone from infringing, denying, trampling on, or otherwise taking them away.  And once that was done, the people would then enjoy the blessings of liberty so that they could govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> In the simplest terms, the Founders viewed as a natural right anything that required no contribution or participation by others.  And that would include the ability to do with one's legally and ethically acquired property whatever the person wished to do that violated nobody else's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxy...it's good to hear from you.
> 
> I am not sure what the quarrel is (with the thread).  It's represented on both sides.
> 
> However, the real question is whether or not such rights (if they exist) are meaningful unless they are protected (supposedly by government).  If they are not meaningful...do they exist.
> 
> This keeps coming back to almost a chicken and egg syndrom.
> 
> But, it is the outcome that I view as being important.
> 
> If government creates rights, they can take them too (and they do this often).
> 
> However, if you think rights come form government, then do you whine when they take them or do you suck on it.
> 
> If you think they are yours and the government is simply taking them....seems like you'd be more prone to take exception (maybe with a rifle) when they come for them.
Click to expand...


Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.

But no.  Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.

Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not.  So governments do not confer rights.  What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.

The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is.  That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is.  A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.

A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Qwb this is the clean debate zone.
> 
> See ya dude.
> 
> And your if thans in paragraph one are not true.
> 
> 
> But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.



What, precisely, is untrue? Your position through out this discussion has been that you are right, and that everyone else is wrong.

You then tried to claim that there was no logical argument that showed that natural rights exist. When I presented one, you tried to argue that it wasn't actually logic, until I proved it was. 

You then tried to claim that reason shows that natural rights don't exist, even though reason is just another name for logic, which can prove anything if you start with the right premise.

I then used reason to show the inherent contradictions in your claim that rights come from government, but people are still justified in fighting for them You dismissed that as a lie, and, once again, declared yourself the superior intellect.

Funny how the guy that is totally incapable of actually mustering an argument other than "Because I say so" holds everyone who disagrees with him in contempt.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Qwb this is the clean debate zone.
> 
> See ya dude.
> 
> And your if thans in paragraph one are not true.
> 
> 
> But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, precisely, is untrue? Your position through out this discussion has been that you are right, and that everyone else is wrong.
> 
> You then tried to claim that there was no logical argument that showed that natural rights exist. When I presented one, you tried to argue that it wasn't actually logic, until I proved it was.
> 
> You then tried to claim that reason shows that natural rights don't exist, even though reason is just another name for logic, which can prove anything if you start with the right premise.
> 
> I then used reason to show the inherent contradictions in your claim that rights come from government, but people are still justified in fighting for them You dismissed that as a lie, and, once again, declared yourself the superior intellect.
> 
> Funny how the guy that is totally incapable of actually mustering an argument other than "Because I say so" holds everyone who disagrees with him in contempt.
Click to expand...


Oh.

and your position is what, that you're wrong and everyone else is right?

your reason was FLAWED.


----------



## G.T.

I never said rights come from Government. 

Help yourself out by starting there.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> Let me use reason to show you the flaws in your position.
> 
> If rights do not exist outside the construct of government.


 *(I never said this)*


Quantum Windbag said:


> then government is the ultimate arbiter of rights *.*


*(even if I had said part one: this reasoning is flawed: the governed still can agree or disagree with the government, no matter WHAT, so there's an aweful LOFTY breakdown in your logic).  *


Quantum Windbag said:


> That means that any argument that centers around rights being sacrosanct would have to assume that governments themselves are sacrosanct.


* (no it wouldn't. I can consider my wife sacrosanct same as I consider certain rights to be. a government doesn't even need to EXIST for your PERSON to consider something sacrosanct.  again, your "if then" has no merit. It's completely made up wioth no logical foundation). *


Quantum Windbag said:


> You are then faced with the paradox of arguing that it is possible to actually interfere with the source of something that cannot be interfered with. *.*


*(no, because I never said the government was the source, so you're not even arguing with anything I said yet declaring I'm somehow cocky for not "coming to your enlightenment" somehow. I said and have maintained that rights came from man's brain, not nature (unless we're playing the canard "mans brain IS NATURE!" which , sure.)*


Quantum Windbag said:


> Your positions indefensible, rights cannot both come from a government we can fight and be sacrosanct. I will leave you to figure out where rights come from since you refuse to admit they come from anything other than government, yet insist they actually are more important than government.


 Good thing you misrepresented my position then. 

My responses are in parenthesis and bold. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Listening

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the entire thread, but I have to quarrel a wee bit with this one.  The Founders knew that there was evil in the world and that we live in a world in which the biggest, baddest, strongest makes the rules and assigns the rights the people would have.  Those holding such power would infringe on, deny, trample on the rights of the people.
> 
> Their intent was that we have a federal government that would recognize natural rights and be given ability to 'secure' them, i.e. prevent anyone from infringing, denying, trampling on, or otherwise taking them away.  And once that was done, the people would then enjoy the blessings of liberty so that they could govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> In the simplest terms, the Founders viewed as a natural right anything that required no contribution or participation by others.  And that would include the ability to do with one's legally and ethically acquired property whatever the person wished to do that violated nobody else's rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy...it's good to hear from you.
> 
> I am not sure what the quarrel is (with the thread).  It's represented on both sides.
> 
> However, the real question is whether or not such rights (if they exist) are meaningful unless they are protected (supposedly by government).  If they are not meaningful...do they exist.
> 
> This keeps coming back to almost a chicken and egg syndrom.
> 
> But, it is the outcome that I view as being important.
> 
> If government creates rights, they can take them too (and they do this often).
> 
> However, if you think rights come form government, then do you whine when they take them or do you suck on it.
> 
> If you think they are yours and the government is simply taking them....seems like you'd be more prone to take exception (maybe with a rifle) when they come for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.
> 
> But no.  Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.
> 
> Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not.  So governments do not confer rights.  What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.
> 
> The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is.  That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is.  A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.
> 
> A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.
Click to expand...


I understand your position.  It is mine too.

However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread.  It is a mess.  

While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.


----------



## G.T.

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy...it's good to hear from you.
> 
> I am not sure what the quarrel is (with the thread).  It's represented on both sides.
> 
> However, the real question is whether or not such rights (if they exist) are meaningful unless they are protected (supposedly by government).  If they are not meaningful...do they exist.
> 
> This keeps coming back to almost a chicken and egg syndrom.
> 
> But, it is the outcome that I view as being important.
> 
> If government creates rights, they can take them too (and they do this often).
> 
> However, if you think rights come form government, then do you whine when they take them or do you suck on it.
> 
> If you think they are yours and the government is simply taking them....seems like you'd be more prone to take exception (maybe with a rifle) when they come for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.
> 
> But no.  Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.
> 
> Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not.  So governments do not confer rights.  What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.
> 
> The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is.  That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is.  A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.
> 
> A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  It is mine too.
> 
> However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread.  It is a mess.
> 
> While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.
Click to expand...


I'd fall into agreement too if the word natural were replaced with basic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Listening said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy...it's good to hear from you.
> 
> I am not sure what the quarrel is (with the thread).  It's represented on both sides.
> 
> However, the real question is whether or not such rights (if they exist) are meaningful unless they are protected (supposedly by government).  If they are not meaningful...do they exist.
> 
> This keeps coming back to almost a chicken and egg syndrom.
> 
> But, it is the outcome that I view as being important.
> 
> If government creates rights, they can take them too (and they do this often).
> 
> However, if you think rights come form government, then do you whine when they take them or do you suck on it.
> 
> If you think they are yours and the government is simply taking them....seems like you'd be more prone to take exception (maybe with a rifle) when they come for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.
> 
> But no.  Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.
> 
> Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not.  So governments do not confer rights.  What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.
> 
> The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is.  That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is.  A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.
> 
> A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  It is mine too.
> 
> However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread.  It is a mess.
> 
> While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.
Click to expand...


LOL.  I read enough of it to see the mess.  

I don't think ideology has that much to do with it though our ideology does seem to be a component on whether a person is able to focus on and analyze and intelligently discuss a concept or will rather focus on and attack/criticize/belittle/ridicule/blame other people.

For instance I think the leftists/political class/statists/progressives/modern day liberals cannot wrap their mind around a concept of natural or unalienable rights.  They don't understand it, can't define it, and certainly can't appreciate it.  Which is why they are who they are I suppose.  They will most often describe a right as what people ought to embrace, ought to require, ought to defend in their opinion.  A concept of live and let live just isn't in their psyche.

And I hasten to add that there are also some on the right who are just that fixated in their ideology and just as inflexible in their understandings.

But I do think more on the right can and do understand what unalienable rights are and why recognition of them and defense of them is necessarily for liberty to exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Qwb this is the clean debate zone.
> 
> See ya dude.
> 
> And your if thans in paragraph one are not true.
> 
> 
> But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, precisely, is untrue? Your position through out this discussion has been that you are right, and that everyone else is wrong.
> 
> You then tried to claim that there was no logical argument that showed that natural rights exist. When I presented one, you tried to argue that it wasn't actually logic, until I proved it was.
> 
> You then tried to claim that reason shows that natural rights don't exist, even though reason is just another name for logic, which can prove anything if you start with the right premise.
> 
> I then used reason to show the inherent contradictions in your claim that rights come from government, but people are still justified in fighting for them You dismissed that as a lie, and, once again, declared yourself the superior intellect.
> 
> Funny how the guy that is totally incapable of actually mustering an argument other than "Because I say so" holds everyone who disagrees with him in contempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.
> 
> and your position is what, that you're wrong and everyone else is right?
> 
> your reason was FLAWED.
Click to expand...


My position is that rights are inherent in all living beings. I have defended that position, and provided links to actual evidence that supports it.

As I pointed out at the time, my logic was valid because the premises led to conclusions, which led to more conclusions, which led to the conclusion that natural rights exist outside government. You were free to show why the conclusions were invalid, or even show that my premises were false. All you were able to muster was "Your reason was flawed." That is still all you have, despite my pointing out how to actually attack my arguments using real logic.

On the other hand, I have never actually declared myself the winner of the debate, while you have.


----------



## G.T.

Your reasoning WAS flawed. 

Also - I never declared myself the winner of anything. All I merely said was that no logical proof has been presented as to rights being natural. And it hasn't. And I'm not you, I don't sit here and hours after people are having a LIVE discussion, go back 10 pages in the thread and start answering everything one by one by one when the people aren't even here anymore. That's a pain in the ass. I answer who is here and now having a discussion with me, that's just my personal way to enjoy the site. 

That every one of your posts wasn't broken down word by word doesn't mean that there's no answer for them - but you keep sticking your chest out as though they're indisputable. They are not.


----------



## G.T.

The argument that someone's ability plus want(or instinct/desire) to do something *thus* makes it a right has been torn apart time on end, and it's what keep being issued here as the "proof" I seek. 

It is not proof, it is flawed logic. The premises do not equal the conclusion. There is no logical bridge there. 

I am able to, so IF I WANTED TO - kill my mom, that does not equate to having a right to do so.  

They very term "right" has an actual definition. That's the crux of that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me use reason to show you the flaws in your position.
> 
> If rights do not exist outside the construct of government.
> 
> 
> 
> *(I never said this)*
Click to expand...


I never said you did, did I? If is a the introduction of a conditional phrase, not a quote.



G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> then government is the ultimate arbiter of rights *.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(even if I had said part one: this reasoning is flawed: the governed still can agree or disagree with the government, no matter WHAT, so there's an aweful LOFTY breakdown in your logic).  ** (no it wouldn't. I can consider my wife sacrosanct same as I consider certain rights to be. a government doesn't even need to EXIST for your PERSON to consider something sacrosanct.  again, your "if then" has no merit. It's completely made up wioth no logical foundation). *
Click to expand...


My point is that, if rights come from the government, they cannot be more important than the source.

This thread, fundamentally, is asking if rights exist without the government. You have been consistently arguing that they do not because you don't believe in natural rights and because, ultimately, they don't exist unless the government protects them. Now you are arguing that, to you, they exist even if the government doesn't protect them. Either you have spent this entire thread creating, and defending, a position that you don't hold, or you are confused about the question.

Which is it?



G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are then faced with the paradox of arguing that it is possible to actually interfere with the source of something that cannot be interfered with. *.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(no, because I never said the government was the source, so you're not even arguing with anything I said yet declaring I'm somehow cocky for not "coming to your enlightenment" somehow. I said and have maintained that rights came from man's brain, not nature (unless we're playing the canard "mans brain IS NATURE!" which , sure.)*
Click to expand...


Again, conditional phrase, look it up.

By the way, how is man's brain not nature? 

If you are trying to argue that, because man thought of it, it isn't natural, how do you deal with beaver dams? The government actually classifies those as natural, even if they don't gt there without help.



G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your positions indefensible, rights cannot both come from a government we can fight and be sacrosanct. I will leave you to figure out where rights come from since you refuse to admit they come from anything other than government, yet insist they actually are more important than government.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing you misrepresented my position then.
> 
> My responses are in parenthesis and bold.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your responses to this post contradict your position throughout the thread so I will ask you a simple question, do rights exist without the government?
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

Dont tell me it contradicts my position when youre sitting in your chair proving you dont even KNOW my position. 

Yes rights exist without governments.

Never did i contradict THAT! GLUCK & dont apologize.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Your reasoning WAS flawed.
> 
> Also - I never declared myself the winner of anything. All I merely said was that no logical proof has been presented as to rights being natural. And it hasn't. And I'm not you, I don't sit here and hours after people are having a LIVE discussion, go back 10 pages in the thread and start answering everything one by one by one when the people aren't even here anymore. That's a pain in the ass. I answer who is here and now having a discussion with me, that's just my personal way to enjoy the site.
> 
> That every one of your posts wasn't broken down word by word doesn't mean that there's no answer for them - but you keep sticking your chest out as though they're indisputable. They are not.



I actually presented one, and then explained why logic isn't the only, or even the best, way to present an argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.
> 
> But no.  Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.
> 
> Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not.  So governments do not confer rights.  What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.
> 
> The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is.  That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is.  A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.
> 
> A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  It is mine too.
> 
> However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread.  It is a mess.
> 
> While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd fall into agreement too if the word natural were replaced with basic.
Click to expand...


Which leaves you with the question, where do basic rights come from? This is why the term natural rights was coined, to differentiate the basic rights from those granted by the government, aka civil rights. Maybe you should spend less time obsessing over a word, and more time thinking about where those basic rights come from. Ultimately, they either come from man, or they are part of him.


----------



## G.T.

No. I told you your premises were not proof of your conclusion.

You then said proof doesnt mean a fact and pointed to the sun and said it was once proven to have revolve around the earth. I said proof does mean fact.

Then you showed the definition of proof. Which had the words "fact and truth" in there. 

It was never the truth or a fact...the thing about the sun, so it was never PROVEN To revolve around he earth. Only falsely thouht to have been proven.

I shouldnt have to explain how logic or reason works.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  It is mine too.
> 
> However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread.  It is a mess.
> 
> While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd fall into agreement too if the word natural were replaced with basic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which leaves you with the question, where do basic rights come from? This is why the term natural rights was coined, to differentiate the basic rights from those granted by the government, aka civil rights. Maybe you should spend less time obsessing over a word, and more time thinking about where those basic rights come from. Ultimately, they either come from man, or they are part of him.
Click to expand...


I don't need to think about it.

I already feel pretty good about where I think they come from. 

They come from man. 

Not nature. 

They come FROM man. 

I've only said it a million times yet you had to ask. hehe


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> The argument that someone's ability plus want(or instinct/desire) to do something *thus* makes it a right has been torn apart time on end, and it's what keep being issued here as the "proof" I seek.
> 
> It is not proof, it is flawed logic. The premises do not equal the conclusion. There is no logical bridge there.
> 
> I am able to, so IF I WANTED TO - kill my mom, that does not equate to having a right to do so.
> 
> They very term "right" has an actual definition. That's the crux of that.



The argument that a desire equals a right is a strawman. I have never once said that it works that way. In fact, I have actually made the argument that simple desire is not equal to a right. I have consistently tried to tie the actual definition of right, a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way, to the natural expression of that right. There is no moral, or legal, entitlement to theft in and of itself. There is, however, a moral , and legal, defense of stealing under some circumstances.


----------



## G.T.

I'll take it a step further. 

My rights come from me. I have whatever right my logic concurs I should have - and I will fight for those as long as I shall live. 

Thankfully, my country also fights to secure the rights that I happen to agree with through my own logic and reason (and study!).


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Dont tell me it contradicts my position when youre sitting in your chair proving you dont even KNOW my position.
> 
> Yes rights exist without governments.
> 
> Never did i contradict THAT! GLUCK & dont apologize.



Tell me something, why did you argue that rights don't exist as part of our nature if you think they exist even if we don't believe in them?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No. I told you your premises were not proof of your conclusion.
> 
> You then said proof doesnt mean a fact and pointed to the sun and said it was once proven to have revolve around the earth. I said proof does mean fact.
> 
> Then you showed the definition of proof. Which had the words "fact and truth" in there.
> 
> It was never the truth or a fact...the thing about the sun, so it was never PROVEN To revolve around he earth. Only falsely thouht to have been proven.
> 
> I shouldnt have to explain how logic or reason works.



Yet you made no effort to explain that statement. The way that logic works is you point out what the errors are, you do not simply declare yourself the victor.

And are still saying that the fact that you said it, without actually offering proof, is proof in and of itself.


----------



## G.T.

Kay man. Kay.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd fall into agreement too if the word natural were replaced with basic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which leaves you with the question, where do basic rights come from? This is why the term natural rights was coined, to differentiate the basic rights from those granted by the government, aka civil rights. Maybe you should spend less time obsessing over a word, and more time thinking about where those basic rights come from. Ultimately, they either come from man, or they are part of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to think about it.
> 
> I already feel pretty good about where I think they come from.
> 
> They come from man.
> 
> Not nature.
> 
> They come FROM man.
> 
> I've only said it a million times yet you had to ask. hehe
Click to expand...


Rights come from man, man comes from nature, therefore, rights come from nature.

See how logic still backs up my position, and leaves you floundering because you simply reject it?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont tell me it contradicts my position when youre sitting in your chair proving you dont even KNOW my position.
> 
> Yes rights exist without governments.
> 
> Never did i contradict THAT! GLUCK & dont apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something, why did you argue that rights don't exist as part of our nature if you think they exist even if we don't believe in them?
Click to expand...


I didn't say they exist if we don't believe in them. 

Again here with the time wasting. 

You necessarily HAVE to believe in them FOR them to exist, is my position. 

wow.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont tell me it contradicts my position when youre sitting in your chair proving you dont even KNOW my position.
> 
> Yes rights exist without governments.
> 
> Never did i contradict THAT! GLUCK & dont apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something, why did you argue that rights don't exist as part of our nature if you think they exist even if we don't believe in them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say they exist if we don't believe in them.
> 
> Again here with the time wasting.
> 
> You necessarily HAVE to believe in them FOR them to exist, is my position.
> 
> wow.
Click to expand...


By that logic, God is real.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> Rights come from man, man comes from nature, therefore, rights come from nature.
> 
> See how logic still backs up my position, and leaves you floundering because you simply reject it?



Um, no. 

I said all along that rights come from man.

I'm not floundering at all. 

When I say they come from man, I mean literally we made them up - 

The opposing argument is that we simply observe them and they always were. 

And I acknowledged like 100 times now that yah obv. mans brain is a part of nature. 

That makes no difference to the argument of whether or not men invented them, or if they preexisted and men simply observe them. My argument is the former.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something, why did you argue that rights don't exist as part of our nature if you think they exist even if we don't believe in them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they exist if we don't believe in them.
> 
> Again here with the time wasting.
> 
> You necessarily HAVE to believe in them FOR them to exist, is my position.
> 
> wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that logic, God is real.
Click to expand...




Um, no not at all. Wow. 

you HAVE to believe in God for him to exist? that's weird. 

to clarify:

rights are a concept not an entity
god is (to believers) an actual entity. belief or unbelief in an entity has no bearing on whether or not it exists.


----------



## G.T.

To clear things up for you, you could either google my dozens of posts where I acknowledged that man's brain is nature - but was separating men's brain for this discussion......


or you can continue to argue with what I never said like you've been, and waste your own valuable time doing so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights come from man, man comes from nature, therefore, rights come from nature.
> 
> See how logic still backs up my position, and leaves you floundering because you simply reject it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.
> 
> I said all along that rights come from man.
> 
> I'm not floundering at all.
> 
> When I say they come from man, I mean literally we made them up -
> 
> The opposing argument is that we simply observe them and they always were.
> 
> And I acknowledged like 100 times now that yah obv. mans brain is a part of nature.
> 
> That makes no difference to the argument of whether or not men invented them, or if they preexisted and men simply observe them. My argument is the former.
Click to expand...


?You have said all along that natural rights do not exist. I just offered another logical proof that they do, and there is no way you can claim my premises are false, or that the conclusion is not valid. That means you have to agree with me that natural rights are real, or agree with me that, as a tool, logic leaves something to be desired.

The rest of your post is your floundering attempt to have your cake and eat it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they exist if we don't believe in them.
> 
> Again here with the time wasting.
> 
> You necessarily HAVE to believe in them FOR them to exist, is my position.
> 
> wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic, God is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no not at all. Wow.
> 
> you HAVE to believe in God for him to exist? that's weird.
> 
> to clarify:
> 
> rights are a concept not an entity
> god is (to believers) an actual entity. belief or unbelief in an entity has no bearing on whether or not it exists.
Click to expand...


There are many people that view God as a  concept. According to you, belief in a concept makes it real. That means that, by your logic, God is real. You cannot refute by claiming that other people believe something else anymore than I can claim that my belief in God requires you to go to church.


----------



## G.T.

No all i have to agree with is that natural rights as the founders described (observed by men) is not the ssme thing as saying INVENTED by men, and parsing phrases doesnt change that in any way shape or form.

You yourself called them natural rights outside of man and now are back to tell me they actually DO come from mens brain and mens brain is a part of nature so voila? NICE!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> To clear things up for you, you could either google my dozens of posts where I acknowledged that man's brain is nature - but was separating men's brain for this discussion......
> 
> 
> or you can continue to argue with what I never said like you've been, and waste your own valuable time doing so.



I prefer to use the logic you claim doesn't exist to make my point.

Rights come from man.
Man comes from nature.
Therefore, rights come from nature.


----------



## G.T.

tell us more about how god is just a concept and not an entity bro


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No all i have to agree with is that natural rights as the founders described (observed by men) is not the ssme thing as saying INVENTED by men, and parsing phrases doesnt change that in any way shape or form.
> 
> You yourself called them natural rights outside of man and now are back to tell me they actually DO come from mens brain and mens brain is a part of nature so voila? NICE!



Why do I have to agree to that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> tell us more about how god is just a concept and not an entity bro



Tell us more about how man isn't natural.

See, I can throw in straw man arguments, I just prefer to actually mock what you are saying.


----------



## G.T.

This is rich. 

Rights come from mens brains. I agree.
mans brain is in nature. I agree.
natural rights theory does not agree with sentence #1. 
I am arguing against rights preexising mens invention of them, thus i am arguing against natural rights as described by the founders but not LITERALLY saying they didnt come from a facet of nature (mens brain).

But thats not what natural rights theory is so.......again, waste of time.


----------



## G.T.

Youre more interested in a false gotcha moment instead of standing by your position or else the frivolous and incomprehensible tangents wouodnt exist.

Would it be cathartic bro?

Go ahead and have your moment man! Zinger whoa! The founding principle of natural rights meant "invented by mans brain?" No? Then you waste MY time now.


----------



## G.T.

The clarification of natural rights as a literal term and natural rights: the theory that rights exist in nature whethrr theyre recognized or not.......

Happened WAAAAAAAAAAAAAyyyyyyy long ago in this thread.


Jeebus what a waste of time/bandwidth.


----------



## dcraelin

Quantum Windbag said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dcraelin-albums-founders-with-quotes-picture6508-carlin3.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he based an entire routine around people telling him he had no right to say certain things.
> Interesting.
> On the other hand, I understand using comedy to make a point, a concept that seems to have flown right over your head.
Click to expand...


you pompous ass....he thought restrictions against using words was silly and inconsistent....I dont think he said "right" in that context,.......   he also thought all the whining about rights was too.

at about the 4.00 minute mark he talks about "rights"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8]George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## dcraelin

Listening said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dcraelin-albums-founders-with-quotes-picture6508-carlin3.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to mock you for quoting George.
> 
> I wish, however, I had the chance to mock George to his face.
Click to expand...


why would you mock me or George?


----------



## G.T.

He just wanted to say gotcha....no matter how frivolous.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> This is rich.
> 
> Rights come from mens brains. I agree.
> mans brain is in nature. I agree.
> natural rights theory does not agree with sentence #1.
> I am arguing against rights preexising mens invention of them, thus i am arguing against natural rights as described by the founders but not LITERALLY saying they didnt come from a facet of nature (mens brain).
> 
> But thats not what natural rights theory is so.......again, waste of time.



Wow, I didn't realize I had to stick with what you think other people believe in order to have a point. I guess I can see why you have so much trouble with the concept if you think the only valid approach to discussing it is what you think people believe. Would you mind telling me what it is I believe so that I can properly argue with you?


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repeat my question...
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I have.
> 
> Rights exist within a Society.
> 
> And governments are part and parcel with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you please post something cogent....at least once ?
> 
> So there is no example of a society without a government ?
Click to expand...


No.

Not really.

None that come to mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Youre more interested in a false gotcha moment instead of standing by your position or else the frivolous and incomprehensible tangents wouodnt exist.
> 
> Would it be cathartic bro?
> 
> Go ahead and have your moment man! Zinger whoa! The founding principle of natural rights meant "invented by mans brain?" No? Then you waste MY time now.



If that was all I was interested in I would have sprung it by now. I actually enjoy arguing with people.


----------



## G.T.

Good for you bro


----------



## Sallow

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute.  If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?
> 
> That you need government to breath ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breathing is not a right.
> 
> It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.
> 
> Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.
> 
> If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.
> 
> Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.
> 
> It's not a hard concept, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean you admit that rights exist without government?
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dcraelin said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dcraelin-albums-founders-with-quotes-picture6508-carlin3.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he based an entire routine around people telling him he had no right to say certain things.
> Interesting.
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik"]George Carlin - Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television[/ame]
> On the other hand, I understand using comedy to make a point, a concept that seems to have flown right over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you pompous ass....he thought restrictions against using words was silly and inconsistent....I dont think he said "right" in that context,.......   he also thought all the whining about rights was too.
> 
> at about the 4.00 minute mark he talks about "rights"
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8"]George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


You do know that I was pointing out his inconsistent position, don't you? He actually went to jail over that 7 words routine because it violated local laws, not just the FCC regulations. He also took the fight about the words all the way to the Supreme Court.

Like I said, interesting.


----------



## dcraelin

Quantum Windbag said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he based an entire routine around people telling him he had no right to say certain things.
> Interesting.
> George Carlin - Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television
> On the other hand, I understand using comedy to make a point, a concept that seems to have flown right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you pompous ass....he thought restrictions against using words was silly and inconsistent....I dont think he said "right" in that context,.......   he also thought all the whining about rights was too.
> 
> at about the 4.00 minute mark he talks about "rights"
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8"]George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that I was pointing out his inconsistent position, don't you? He actually went to jail over that 7 words routine because it violated local laws, not just the FCC regulations. He also took the fight about the words all the way to the Supreme Court.
> Like I said, interesting.
Click to expand...


no i didnt get that from your post,.......just read some about it on wikipedia and I dont think it was him that took it all the way to the supreme court.

He maybe was being a bit inconsistent, but I think hes mainly pointing to idea that rights are dependent on governments and I would like to think he agrees with Jefferson in what he says in the picture I posted previously.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> This is rich.
> 
> Rights come from mens brains. I agree.
> mans brain is in nature. I agree.
> natural rights theory does not agree with sentence #1.
> I am arguing against rights preexising mens invention of them, thus i am arguing against natural rights as described by the founders but not LITERALLY saying they didnt come from a facet of nature (mens brain).
> 
> But thats not what natural rights theory is so.......again, waste of time.



Correct, *G.T.*, that's not what it is.  Still arguing with straw men, I see.  *Quantum*, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  

Notwithstanding, G.T.'s wrong too.

The _material_ facts of _natural_ law are apprehended by man via historical _experience_ and are affirmed by the universal imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision, which is not quite the same thing that Quantum is arguing, especially because the understanding of the facts of natural law is derived from the dynamics of human conduct and human interaction.

The translation of natural law into the conventions of civil government, including the accommodations of natural rights in terms of civil liberties _and_ the additional privileges of the collective in terms of civil rights:  these are the abstractions of political science.  

Natural rights are concrete and precede the machinations of civil government that are exerted by sentient creatures.  

That's the real deal, *G.T.*, not a straw man.  And make no mistake about it, the real deal, the actual apology for natural law, utterly destroys your relativistic red herrings concerning social constructs and the like.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can think.
> You cannot stop me from thinking.
> Therefore I have the right to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to do something does not equal the right to do something. Ability and right are not synonyms. That's not how logic works. "I can murder my mom. You cannot stop me from murdering my mom. Therefore I have the right to murder my mom" is just one glaring example of why this doesn't work.
> 
> 
> Same thing. *Ability = right* is all you're positing. that's a leap of logic. Unless of course the WORD right has a new definition as created by q.w.b. --> *Right = anything you have the ability to do. *
> 
> Sorry, that's not what right means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked for a logical proof of my position. I delivered one. If you think my premises are wrong, feel free to provide something other than your assertion that they are wrong to back up your claim.
> 
> Wait, that would actually require you to debate the issues, which is work, whereas you prefer to  declare yourself the winner by acclamation, which isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it is. In fact logic is defined by the ability to reach a conclusion that is supported by two, or more, premises that may, or may not, be true.
> 
> But, please, keep pretending you understand logic.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is logical backing? I only ask because, outside of your head, I never heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> How does it not?
> 
> The neat thing about logical premises is that the rules of logic require you to assume they are true. Funny how a guy that claims that I don't have a logical backing, whatever that is, for my conclusions doesn't understand that simple rule.
> 
> By the way, the above is one reason why I prefer to make arguments based on things other than logic.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if that's so - then you're literally positing that we have the right to do anything we are able to do. Which is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is what you are posting. I never once said anything even remotely like that.
> 
> I will, however, admit that your conclusion is completely logical, which is another reason I rarely use logic in arguments.
> 
> Funny how the guy that insisted on seeing logic suddenly discovers that he doesn't actually like logic, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'll correct you on how GT's logic works, let the man show you how it's done:
> 
> GT says that:
> 
> Natural rights are not proven
> He is seeking logical proof
> none has been provided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you logical proof, and your brain failed to process it because it doesn't understand the terms you are using.
Click to expand...


*Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are*

(I started to post this the other day, but realized that the rationale might not be readily accessible to those  who do not have my background in the history of law.  The post directly underneath this one drives the facts home:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-57.html#post8888602 .  I've been busy with other things and haven't had the time to complete the standard apology for natural law.)

Please carefully consider the following.  I know what I'm talking about.  

*Quantum*, I really wish you hadn't made the _Ability = Rights argument_.  While inalienable natural rights would necessarily be things that are at the very least embedded in nature, not afforded by government:  _abilities_, even those as seemingly fundamental as the ability to think and speak, are not synonymous to rights.  *G.T.* is right.  No matter how you configure your syllogism or express its respective constituents, you're not going to make that work.  The expressions of any given innate ability must be related to/weighted against their effects on others. 

Notwithstanding, innate abilities and free will _are_ the pertinent constituents residing within the sphere of the dichotomies (light and transient transgressions-existential transgressions _and_ initial force-defensive force) that govern the apprehension of what inalienable natural rights are, as opposed to what they are not.  Though one need not appeal to God to demonstrate what these rights are, one cannot do so outside the context of the consequences of moral decision in terms of action and reaction.

*1.*  Under the rule of law in the state of civil government, _how_ does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?

*2.*  In the state of nature, _how_ does one distinguish the difference between innate rights and innate freedoms?

*3.*  In either the state of nature or the state of civil government, _how_ does one distinguish the difference between the light and transient transgressions of rights and the existential transgressions of the same?

*4. * _How_ does one discern where one's rights end and where another's rights begin?

*5.*  What is the inherently contradictory and self-negating, metaphysical presupposition underlying the claim that *all* rights are mere social constructs or the political rights afforded by government?   

The answers to these questions readily divulge the identity of the inalienable natural rights of man and utterly destroy *Rabbi's* and *G.T. et. al.'s *claptrap, but their wont is to go on forever arguing against straw men rather than answer these questions and grapple with the self-evident imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision.

The only ones here going on and on about stuff that is purely abstract are the relativists.  The abstractions of social constructs.  Esoteric blather about what rights aren't sans any discernible indication as to what they are.  Blah.  Blah.  Blah.  Blah.  The abstractions of political science in terms of the respective institutional powers and formulations of civil government, which, by the way, the exigencies of nature and the aspirations of sentience inarguably precede in order and command.  It's not the other way around.  

In the meantime, natural law deals with the concrete realities and material outcomes of everyday life.  

By the way, *dblack*, that's why it's called natural law; natural rights are not mere abstractions, and are not anything less than absolute.

You don't know what you're talking about.  

Hint:  natural, innate, things that would necessarily be foundationally concrete; of the first order rationally, and readily apparent empirically.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are*

*G.T. et. al.*, the immediate origin of *natural* rights is, uh, you know, _*nature*_, and the God of nature is the ultimate origin.  

While one need not appeal to God to demonstrate their actuality and inviolability, as I have already shown, *Quantum*, one must never forget the fact of their ultimate origin.  One does not prove what innate rights are with syllogisms predicated on _ability_ or _free will_.  Natural rights are not synonymous to _ability_ and they are not predicated on _ability_.  The matter is not abstract in the sense that the know-nothings would have it, but it's not that simple either.  The origin and the essence of the natural rights of man have been established for centuries.  The concrete concerns on which they are immediately predicated and their identity have been established for centuries.

Disregard the implications regarding the ultimate origin of natural rights, you will end up making indefensible arguments regarding their nature and identity. 

Please, stop trying to reinvent the wheel.  It only confuses matters.

Natural rights are immediately predicated on the same real-world, dichotomic dynamics that divulge their exact identity:  *light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions and its correlate initial force-defensive force.* 

Period.  End of discussion.  They are *real-world* concerns.  They are *natural*.  They are *concrete*.  They are *material*.  They are *absolute*.  Hence, they are identified and demonstrated accordingly.  They are not identified and demonstrated with syllogisms predicated on secondary concerns.  

I have the ability to wiggle my toes.  So what?  

I could lose that ability should some paralysis strike me.  The point here is that _when_ one argues natural rights on the basis of innate abilities, *one fallaciously implies that they are subject to negation by the whims of other agents.*  They are not inalienable in the sense that they *cannot (ability)* be suppressed or violated; they are inalienable in the sense that they *may not (consent)* be suppressed or violated without dire consequences, which may include the use deadly force.

In the absence of violation, we have peace; in the presence of violation, war.  

In other words, they are identified and demonstrated on the basis of the *material* impact that human actions have on the *material* concerns of human life, liberty and property.  Period. 

So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable _because_ they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of _ability_.

RABBI, G.T. ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

DO YOU GET THE POINT OF THE FOLLOWING _NOW_?



> Your claim that the mutual obligations of morality are not pertinent to understanding the essence of natural rights, particularly as they are carried over from the state of nature and expressed in the state of civil government, is false and irrational. Obviously, the understanding of this goes to their parameters, RABBI, *one of the several things that accordingly you supposedly cannot be determined by sentient beings--for crying out loud!*  And that is self-evident too, given the necessities of the government's regulatory and judicial authority regarding the legitimate extent of civil liberties in the face of conflicting interests.
> 
> How about you stop wasting our time with your obviously ill-considered and fallacious claims as you think to preemptively negate the manifestly essential premises of natural law.
> 
> Your ignorance and closed-minded, intellectual bigotry are not the stuff of real arguments.



___________________________________________

Edit:  So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable _because_ they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of _ability_.


----------



## dilloduck

Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?



Yep. Some people just can't get past childish notions like liberty and justice.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?



Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.

Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .

*Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.  

Bang, bang.  *


----------



## beagle9

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Some people just can't get past childish notions like liberty and justice.
Click to expand...

When one is born or while one is still in the womb, he or she has the right to live of course, and it is up to the parent and not the government to insure that the right is therefore nurished and protected be it from pregnancy on up to leaving the home finally. The only time the government should get involved, is if the right is being taken away in an unjust manor or it is abused by the parent who may be attempting to take away that right in which the child would have been kept safe with or was born with because of the protection for the life in which he or she is expected to have (or) that he or she has been born with afterwards all due to that protection in which had allowed the birth along with the upbringing that comes next for years afterwards to materialize.  

When the child grows older, and he or she leaves the home, and then the care of their parents, well the right to live, and to seek out liberty and happyness does still exist along with many other rights that are also granted along the way. Many rights either born with or are next granted unto us afterwards, do always coinside with each other always. The rights in which we are of course naturally born with, therefore gives us the ability to think for ourselves also, and that is another natural born right that we have been born with as well. Once born we begin a constant journey of increasing our rights, and we begin seeking out those for whom we can trust in the protection of those rights. We then choose them as our protectors of course, and they are to do this only, and they are to do no more unless we ask for them to, yet all the while believing that we are good and capable of these things in which we should control for ourselves always. Wouldn't you agree ?


----------



## dblack

beagle9 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Some people just can't get past childish notions like liberty and justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one is born or while one is still in the womb, he or she has the right to live of course, and it is up to the parent and not the government to insure that the right is therefore nurished and protected be it from pregnancy on up to leaving the home finally. The only time the government should get involved, is if the right is being taken away in an unjust manor or it is abused by the parent who may be attempting to take away that right in which the child would have been kept safe with or was born with because of the protection for the life in which he or she is expected to have (or) that he or she has been born with afterwards all due to that protection in which had allowed the birth along with the upbringing that comes next for years afterwards to materialize.
> 
> When the child grows older, and he or she leaves the home, and then the care of their parents, well the right to live, and to seek out liberty and happyness does still exist along with many other rights that are also granted along the way. Many rights either born with or are next granted unto us afterwards, do always coinside with each other always. The rights in which we are of course naturally born with, therefore gives us the ability to think for ourselves also, and that is another natural born right that we have been born with as well. Once born we begin a constant journey of increasing our rights, and we begin seeking out those for whom we can trust in the protection of those rights. We then choose them as our protectors of course, and they are to do this only, and they are to do no more unless we ask for them to, yet all the while believing that we are good and capable of these things in which we should control for ourselves always. Wouldn't you agree ?
Click to expand...


Uh... what?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.
> 
> Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .
> 
> *Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.
> 
> Bang, bang.  *
Click to expand...


actions are real---rights are invented


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Sallow said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you cited is natural.
> 
> "Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That's only like the 100th time that claim has been made on this thread.  Heard that.  Dealt with that.  Got the T-shirt.
> 
> You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.
> 
> What none of you on this thread have ever done is provide a rational justification for that claim.  There it is again suspended in midair.
> 
> What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?
> 
> Here's an easier one for you:  _how_ does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?  Note:  the question is not _what_ they are, respectively, though one must begin with the _what_, but _how_ one distinguishes the former from the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no argument really.
Click to expand...


You got that right, in the sense that you didn't provide any argument, really, let alone answer the only question that would demonstrate that _*all*_ rights are nothing more than social constructs, assuming your answer is coherently rational and backed by some discernible empirical data--either historical or biological.      

*Once again:  What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?*



> You guys have to rely on esoteric constructs which have little or no meaning in the real world.





*Further Proof Regarding the Facts of Natural Law*


*False.  That's you guys and you guys alone all day long.  You just think that's true because you've never gotten beyond the red herrings of relativism, and you think the strawmen arguments proffered by others on this thread are the actual stuff of natural law. *

We're _not_ talking about the social constructs of political science:  civil rights or civil liberties.  The latter, by the way, *are* those readily and universally recognized innate rights as translated from nature into the political conventions of civil government.

How does one discern the difference between the civil liberties predicated on innate rights and the civil rights or privileges of the collective under the rule of law in the state of civil government?

Gee wiz.  If what you claim were true that would be a monumental task of the inscrutable kind.  But fortunately for you and me, your claim is bunk, so it's a relatively simple matter.  

We are talking about innate rights, hence, those that pertain life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property, not the theoretical delegations or arrangements of the institutional powers of political science relative to the state of civil government.



> "Rights" aren't even universal and differ between human cultures.



Stop it.  You know better.  The inherent, universal traits of humanity are self-evident:  thought, volition and the related material exigencies and aspirations of self-preservation.  We're not vegetables.  We're sentient beings.  Once again, with regard to these elemental facts of human physiology and consciousness, the elementary innate rights of man pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.  They are concrete, not esoteric.  Your claim is risible.  Absurd.  Ridiculous.  Once again, see above.  

You're walking down the street, and someone jumps you out of nowhere and beats on your ass. . . .

*Every human being on this planet knows* that you have but three alternative courses of action:  fight, flee or submit.  *Every human being on this planet knows* that what is being threatened/violated is (1) life, (2) the fundamentals of human action and/or (3) property.  *Every human being on this planet knows* that the violation of these things is wrong, _because_ *every human being on this planet knows* that the violation of these things constitutes existential transgressions they would not have perpetrated on them.  *Every regime that exists or has ever existed*, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them:  murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.

These three things and their respective aspects are universally apprehended.

Say it isn't so again _now_, and know that you're talking like a fool.

RABBI, G.T., ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

Even despotic psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others apprehend this truth as such always justify their atrocities by _first_ declaring some group or another to be something less than human, renegade citizens or non-citizens (the timeless caveats), who may, therefore, be murdered, enslaved or reeducated.  There's _always_ a pretext relative to these three things. 

Totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, or institutions akin to such regimes within societies that are otherwise generally freer have always existed.  All persons under the sway of the former are decidedly less free, but these three categories of rights and their respective aspects obviously persist and strain against the chains that bind the overtly "subversive" expressions of them therein.

These basic, innate functions of sentient beings have always been known to man, and have been referred to, variously, as the prerogatives of man, the dignities of man or the rights of man, not to be confused with any of the politically abstract accommodations made for them by government, at whatever level, or with any of the additional political privileges afforded by government.  They are centuries old, predating the modern expression of them from the Enlightenment in terms of natural law proper, *and their historical actuality sure as hell predates the retarded, post-modern, relativistic construct that there exists no universally absolute moral principles or innate rights. 

Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.  Bang, bang.*

Your sloganeering is not a material or ontological assertion, let alone an argument, against *the fact of these things*; you're quibbling over semantics! 

Call them prerogatives, dignities, rights, inherent inclinations, the fundamental exigencies and expressions of sentient beings:  they clearly are not and have never been the stuff of mere social constructs, niceties, accommodations, or the civil rights afforded directly by government.



> The fact that this country had slavery absolutely destroys your argument. Even more so that this country participated in torture in the modern age.



You can't even coherently state (1) what you're implying and you're utterly oblivious to (2) the inherent contradiction of your claim.  

First, you're implying the same goofy idea as that asserted by *gnarlylove*:  that no rights can be inalienable _because_ all rights, whether they be innate or not, can be infringed.  The term inalienable as it pertains to rights doesn't carry any such connotation and never has.  

They are inalienable _because_, as opposed to abstract political rights, they inherently and benignly adhere to the nature of the creature as incontrovertibly demonstrated in the above and, therefore, the violation of them constitutes a transgression that is subject to being put down by deadly force, legitimately and justly so.  In the state of nature their violation is an act of war, and in the state of civil government their violation is a crime.

Hence, enslavement and torture in the absence of due provocation are existential transgressions of inalienable rights:  acts of war or crimes. 

And the Founders knew from the beginning that slavery was a peculiar and destabilizing institution, as it has always been throughout history in the face of the imperatives of human nature, and hoped it could be peacefully and incrementally abolished before tensions escalated to an armed civil war. 

Oops. 

*Second, if, according to you, there are no absolutes of any kind, except the absolute that there are no absolutes, and, therefore, according you, the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory and self-negating. . . .  Oh, never mind.*

*crickets chirping*

But let's pretend for a moment that your contention does not _absolutely_ violate the laws of logic--the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle--and note the absurdity of a relativist talking about slavery and torture as if these things weren't merely the allocation of human resources and sport. 

*crickets chirping*

The point will fly over the heads of some.



> Governments are human constructs set up to protect human rights.



That's right.  You can't maintain a rationally consistent argument in defense of an absurdity, as you cannot evade the innate and universal imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision, can you?  

They're natural, innate, absolute . . . inescapable.

Congratulations.   You've finally awoken from your fantasy, for whether you realize or not, you just conceded that the materially innate exigencies and aspirations of humanity, including rights, precede the abstract constructs of civil government.

But wait a minute!



> But even that construct doesn't work out all the time.  If right were "natural"? That simply wouldn't be the case.




Back to fantasyland.  You just contradicted yourself in the space of four short sentences. 

HEY, RABBI, G.T., ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?  DO YOU GET THE RELEVANCE OF MY PREVIOUS DECONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVISM, WHICH YOU POOH-POOHED, _NOW_?

The only ones dabbling in abstractions and esoteric claptrap are those going on about social constructs in the face of real-world scenarios and consequences.

*BTW, as a matter of preempting any more nonsense about my posts being paragraphs of empty rhetoric, let's get something straight: any braying jackass can write slogans parading as arguments.  Thoroughly deconstructing such crap from first principles and examples routinely takes more space.  While the basic facts of the matter before us are self-evident, the reasons they are self-evident in the face of the convoluted machinations of the falsehoods that would obscure them are more complex.*


----------



## dilloduck

Universal imperatives ?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.
> 
> Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .
> 
> *Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.
> 
> Bang, bang.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
Click to expand...


I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.
> 
> Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .
> 
> *Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.
> 
> Bang, bang.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
Click to expand...


rights and freedoms are the same thing ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.
> 
> Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .
> 
> *Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.
> 
> Bang, bang.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
Click to expand...


Semantics.

Here's your actual argument in the face of the facts of the imperatives of self-preservation:  there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; hence, the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false.

I don't need to refute you.  You refute yourself.

You're dismissed.

Next.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rights and freedoms are the same thing ?
Click to expand...


The "inalienable rights" that Jefferson was referring to are just freedoms, yes.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.
> 
> Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .
> 
> *Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.
> 
> Bang, bang.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> 
> Here's your actual argument in the face of the facts of the imperatives of self-preservation:  there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; hence, the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false.
> 
> I don't need to refute you.  You refute yourself.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Next.
Click to expand...


what's with the imperative BS ?  Is this Star Trek ?

We are free to do whatever we like.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.
> 
> Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .
> 
> *Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.
> 
> Bang, bang.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
Click to expand...


False, *dblack*, on all counts.  Sophomoric gibberish. 

Natural rights go to the imperatives of the human condition.  

Freedoms go to ability relative to free will.

The Is-Ought dichotomy.

Further, your talk about civil rights is that of the unlearned laymen.

There is a formal distinction between civil rights (which pertain to freedoms/privileges) and civil liberties, which pertain to the accommodations made by civil government in the face of the preceding natural rights of man that compel them.  Civil liberties trump civil rights.  Youve been unwittingly brainwashed by the political motifs of Marxism.

It would be funny, if it weren't so tragic, given your child-like attempts to affirm inalienable rights.

But you won't be taught or corrected, will you?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> 
> Here's your actual argument in the face of the facts of the imperatives of self-preservation:  there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; hence, the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false.
> 
> I don't need to refute you.  You refute yourself.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what's with the imperative BS ?  Is this Star Trek ?
> 
> We are free to do whatever we like.
Click to expand...


Never said we weren't.  But violate the imperatives, i.e., cross the constraints of _Ought_, and watch what happens.  You shall have to fight, flee or submit.  There's your freedom.

Next?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, *dblack*, on all counts.  Sophomoric gibberish.
> 
> Natural rights go to the imperatives of the human condition.
Click to expand...

Did I say anything about "natural" rights?


> Further, your talk about civil rights is that of the unlearned laymen.



Yes, if I was "learned" I'd have access to asinine insults for rhetoric, rather than rational argument.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> 
> Here's your actual argument in the face of the facts of the imperatives of self-preservation:  there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; hence, the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false.
> 
> I don't need to refute you.  You refute yourself.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what's with the imperative BS ?  Is this Star Trek ?
> 
> We are free to do whatever we like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said we weren't.  But violate the imperatives, i.e., cross the constraints of _Ought_, and watch what happens.  You shall have to fight, flee or submit.  There's your freedom.
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


LOL  I never said we were free from dealing with the natural consequences of being alive.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rights and freedoms are the same thing ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "inalienable rights" that Jefferson was referring to are just freedoms, yes.
Click to expand...


False, unadulterated crap.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still at I see. If any such thing as a 'natural right' existed I think you would have found it by now ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really how you think of abstract concepts like freedom and rights? Like physical quantities that will be 'found'? Or are you just playing the demagogue for rhetorical flourish?
Click to expand...


Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he.  

The essence of _innate/natural_ rights is _not_ abstract, *dblack*, and that's why Rabbi ran circles around you.  You have conceded the central fact of natural rights to that which is utterly false.

And that's why you incessantly contradict yourself.

First, you utter the absurdity that innate rights are _inalienable_ . . . yet _not_ sacrosanct.  

Now, you utter the absurdity that they are _natural_ (something that would necessarily be concrete in some sense) . . . yet abstract.   

But you won't be taught, *dblack*, because in spite of my demonstration of the tangible essence of natural rights, you can't imagine how that could be so, though it be nothing more complex than the material exigencies of self-preservation and the aspirations of self-interest that every swinging Dick and Jane on the planet necessarily exerts every friggin' day of their lives.  Self-evident. 

Monkey see no truth, hear no truth, speak no truth.

The more you talk, the more apparent it becomes that you don't hold to any real belief in inalienable natural rights at all.  You don't grasp the substance of their apprehension at all.

Are you still holding onto the delusion that the sociopolitical philosophy and affirmations expressed in the Declaration of Independence are the brainchild of Jefferson?  Or that the common term of art _pursuit of happiness_ was first uttered by Jefferson?  It precedes him by decades and pertains to private property (the ownership of one's own self, one's aspirations and one's material assets, for starters).  Concrete.  Not abstract.  Are you still thinking that the central dichotomy of natural law proper, light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions, and its correlate initial force-defensive force, were first advanced by Jefferson?  The inalienable right of revolt, Jefferson?  LOL!  These things and many more that pertain to the absolutes of the human condition have been observed since the dawn of man, and the modern expressions of them in the above from the Enlightenment  were common knowledge before Jefferson was born.

Are you still implying that Jefferson was just being cute?  Pickin' a fight with the Brits?  Waxing poetic about things he didn't really believe to be rationally self-evident or materially absolute?  Are you still confounding the distinction between the essential facets of democracy and republicanism?  The distinction between freedoms and innate rights?  Between civil rights and civil liberties?  In other words, are you still making things up about that which you know next to nothing about?  Still pretending that your opinions about what Jefferson meant is the cat's meow when what Jefferson meant is known to be, as a matter of academically and empirically demonstrable fact, diametrically opposed to your thesis?

And all the while the Declaration of Independence is merely Jefferson's abbreviated reiteration of Locke's _Two Treatises of Civil Government_ and Sydney's _Discourses Concerning Government_.  Make no mistake about it, they believed every word of it to be gospel, to be rationally self-evident and materially absolute . .  . and so did Hamilton's most ferocious nemesis, namely, Jefferson.      

You're trying to reinvent the wheel as you foolishly spite the demonstration of the natural and, therefore, concrete realities of inalienable rights in terms of the material consequences of human conduct and interaction, and the subsequent exegesis of that demonstration in the historical cannon of natural law written by intellectual giants.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's with the imperative BS ?  Is this Star Trek ?
> 
> We are free to do whatever we like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said we weren't.  But violate the imperatives, i.e., cross the constraints of _Ought_, and watch what happens.  You shall have to fight, flee or submit.  There's your freedom.
> 
> Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL  I never said we were free from dealing with the natural consequences of being alive.
Click to expand...


So why are you laughing?  Among other things pertinent to natural law and innate rights, that's what the imperatives are, namely, the consequences.

Dude.

As everyone can see, you doubted or questioned.

I answered.

You now concede the fact of them . . . yet you laugh.

I don't know where you come from, but where I come from the laughter would be all about you.

Look, I find this game of _got ya_ to be a little boorish, but make no mistake about, you tangle with me, and you'll be the one got every time.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said we weren't.  But violate the imperatives, i.e., cross the constraints of _Ought_, and watch what happens.  You shall have to fight, flee or submit.  There's your freedom.
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  I never said we were free from dealing with the natural consequences of being alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you laughing?  Among other things pertinent to natural law and innate rights, that's what the imperatives are, namely, the consequences.
> 
> Dude.
> 
> As everyone can see, you doubted or questioned.
> 
> I answered.
> 
> You now concede the fact of them . . . yet you laugh.
> 
> I don't know where you come from, but where I come from the laughter would be all about you.
> 
> Look, I find this game of _got ya_ to be a little boorish, but make no mistake about, you tangle with me, and you'll be the one got every time.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just very plainly tell us what the natural imperative is and how it came to be. ?  I'd like to hear one innate right that we have too if I could please.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the modifier 'legitimate'? Who decides that? You?
> 
> Tracing the evolution of the human species will show that social structures developed from the natural rights. The lone wolf is a viable, all be it inefficient, social structure. These human structures became more complex over time, eventually evolving into things called civilized societies, but the quid pro quo was always the same. The governing social structure protected the individual rights in exchange for a degree of co-operation.
> 
> Are you denying that evolution ever occured?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because _you_ inserted the qualifier that "[g]overnment was invented to protect existing individual natural rights".  Hitler or Stalin certainly wouldn't have agreed with that.  I don't believe that Hitler's or Stalin's concept of government is legitimate or congruent with the form of government that would affect the protection of "existing individual natural rights".  Do you?
> 
> As for the rest of your post, shifting to the pertinent dichotomic terms thereof, you're still confounding a similar ontological distinction:  the difference between mechanism and agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that was not a qualifier. It was a statement, backed by millennia of evolutionary change. Your assertion of a dichotomy of ontological distinction would benefit if you could provide an example. There was no conflation at all. I have provided the 'lone wolf' example as being before the 'we are all a team' example. The agency came later. You get the next 'at bat'.
Click to expand...


Actually, it occurred to me the other night that what I said in regard to your alleged qualifier is all wrong.  I agree with you.  Bad M.D.!    Wrong term.  To be fair, I left it for you to smash.  Good eye.  Brain fart on my part.  Had you not smashed it, I would have brought it to your attention in this post and acknowledge the error anyway.  

Sorry for the delay.  As you might note, I'm smashing egregiously systemic error in the above. 

However, the intended criticism is still valid:  you said that government was invented to do such and such, but the only sense in which that's universally true goes to the fundamentals of human existence and consciousness, precisely the things that refute your assertion and substantiate mine.  (See my response to Sallow in the above:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=8888817#post8888817 )

All I'm saying is that there is a difference between agency (sentience/cause),  and mechanism (means/process).  Sentience is the agent that creates government; it cannot be the other way around.  Nature precedes politically organized society.

Sallow's claim is so obviously wrong at a glance, the refutation of it is redundant.

Hence, your observation concerning the mechanism of evolution is to no avail.

I'm not sure what's going on here. . . .

Your contention is that the "lone wolf" (_agent_, right?) precedes "we are all a team" (_the formal bonds of civil government_, right?).  It appears that we agree, but then you write:  "[t]he agency [agent or "lone wolf"?] came later.  

To be fair to you, it appears you weren't clear on what I meant by _agency_/_agent_.

No biggy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dcraelin said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> you pompous ass....he thought restrictions against using words was silly and inconsistent....I dont think he said "right" in that context,.......   he also thought all the whining about rights was too.
> 
> at about the 4.00 minute mark he talks about "rights"
> George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that I was pointing out his inconsistent position, don't you? He actually went to jail over that 7 words routine because it violated local laws, not just the FCC regulations. He also took the fight about the words all the way to the Supreme Court.
> Like I said, interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no i didnt get that from your post,.......just read some about it on wikipedia and I dont think it was him that took it all the way to the supreme court.
> 
> He maybe was being a bit inconsistent, but I think hes mainly pointing to idea that rights are dependent on governments and I would like to think he agrees with Jefferson in what he says in the picture I posted previously.
Click to expand...


You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect the world to change simply because you believe something that isn't true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to do something does not equal the right to do something. Ability and right are not synonyms. That's not how logic works. "I can murder my mom. You cannot stop me from murdering my mom. Therefore I have the right to murder my mom" is just one glaring example of why this doesn't work.
> 
> 
> Same thing. *Ability = right* is all you're positing. that's a leap of logic. Unless of course the WORD right has a new definition as created by q.w.b. --> *Right = anything you have the ability to do. *
> 
> Sorry, that's not what right means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for a logical proof of my position. I delivered one. If you think my premises are wrong, feel free to provide something other than your assertion that they are wrong to back up your claim.
> 
> Wait, that would actually require you to debate the issues, which is work, whereas you prefer to  declare yourself the winner by acclamation, which isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it is. In fact logic is defined by the ability to reach a conclusion that is supported by two, or more, premises that may, or may not, be true.
> 
> But, please, keep pretending you understand logic.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is logical backing? I only ask because, outside of your head, I never heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> How does it not?
> 
> The neat thing about logical premises is that the rules of logic require you to assume they are true. Funny how a guy that claims that I don't have a logical backing, whatever that is, for my conclusions doesn't understand that simple rule.
> 
> By the way, the above is one reason why I prefer to make arguments based on things other than logic.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is what you are posting. I never once said anything even remotely like that.
> 
> I will, however, admit that your conclusion is completely logical, which is another reason I rarely use logic in arguments.
> 
> Funny how the guy that insisted on seeing logic suddenly discovers that he doesn't actually like logic, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'll correct you on how GT's logic works, let the man show you how it's done:
> 
> GT says that:
> 
> Natural rights are not proven
> He is seeking logical proof
> none has been provided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you logical proof, and your brain failed to process it because it doesn't understand the terms you are using.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are*
> 
> (I started to post this the other day, but realized that the rationale might not be readily accessible to those  who do not have my background in the history of law.  The post directly underneath this one drives the facts home:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-57.html#post8888602 .  I've been busy with other things and haven't had the time to complete the standard apology for natural law.)
> 
> Please carefully consider the following.  I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> *Quantum*, I really wish you hadn't made the _Ability = Rights argument_.  While inalienable natural rights would necessarily be things that are at the very least embedded in nature, not afforded by government:  _abilities_, even those as seemingly fundamental as the ability to think and speak, are not synonymous to rights.  *G.T.* is right.  No matter how you configure your syllogism or express its respective constituents, you're not going to make that work.  The expressions of any given innate ability must be related to/weighted against their effects on others.
Click to expand...


I did not say that ability is equal to rights, I argued that ability is evidence of rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Wow---still talking about something that doesn't exist except in the fairy tales that men tell themselves ?



Wow, still waiting for a single example of any government granting people a natural right.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, *dblack*, on all counts.  Sophomoric gibberish.
> 
> Natural rights go to the imperatives of the human condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say anything about "natural" rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Further, your talk about civil rights is that of the unlearned laymen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if I was "learned" I'd have access to asinine insults for rhetoric, rather than rational argument.
Click to expand...


But it's okay for you to make fallacious arguments and tout falsehoods as if they were objective facts--making it up as you go along.   Jefferson?  The Declaration of Independence?  Ring a bell? 

No.  You didn't learn any of the stuff your spouting from the actual history of natural law, and you've never read or thought much beyond the basics of political science 101.  You have no idea how evident that is to one of my learning.  

For example, take your conflation of freedoms and rights (also, _freedoms vs. liberties_, _innate freedoms vs. innate rights_, or in the formal terms of civil government as opposed to those of the state of nature, _civil rights vs. civil liberties_).  But what is most telling is the fact that you apparently think that just because the terms _civil rights_ and _civil liberties_ are often or commonly used interchangeably, they necessarily and comprehensively denote the same thing.

False.

Two things are going here that you know nothing about.

One, it is in fact the agenda of the left to expunge the term _civil liberties_ from the lexicon of political science in academia and has been for decades, as the term denotes the inalienable natural rights of man as translated from the state of nature into the respective designations of civil government, namely, with regard to the Constitution of the Republic, The Bill of Rights, *dblack*, against which Congress shall make no law.

Hello! 

These things go to the construct of individual liberty, hated by the left who favor the living Constitution of a systematically subverted notion of the Bill of Rights that would accommodate the construct of a collectivist democracy.

Currently, in case law, due to decisions handed down by leftist Courts, the federal government reckons certain crimes, including murder, in terms of civil rights violations depending on the circumstances, when, ultimately, what is really being violated in terms of natural law is more at violations of civil liberties.

Hello!

Two, when the convention is not being intentionally abused, the context tells us what kind of rights are actually being considered relative to this distinction, though more often than not in those instances the classical liberal will make the distinction emphatic, using the terms _civil rights_ or _civil liberties_ respectively.  

Digging a little deeper, the distinction goes to that between _positive rights_ and _negative rights_.

But you don't have to take my word for any of this.  

Civil liberties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil and political rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Difference between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

https://journals.law.stanford.edu/s...sjcrcl/online/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties

What Is the Difference Between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you won't be taught, will you?  And apparently you're not going to stop pretending that your personal musings regarding matters that are subject to empirical falsification are objective facts . . . when in fact they're not.

That's insulting the intelligence of everyone here and pissing on the truth.

I don't know why you're complaining, I gave you several warnings.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  I never said we were free from dealing with the natural consequences of being alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you laughing?  Among other things pertinent to natural law and innate rights, that's what the imperatives are, namely, the consequences.
> 
> Dude.
> 
> As everyone can see, you doubted or questioned.
> 
> I answered.
> 
> You now concede the fact of them . . . yet you laugh.
> 
> I don't know where you come from, but where I come from the laughter would be all about you.
> 
> Look, I find this game of _got ya_ to be a little boorish, but make no mistake about, you tangle with me, and you'll be the one got every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you just very plainly tell us what the natural imperative is and how it came to be. ?  I'd like to hear one innate right that we have too if I could please.
Click to expand...


Did read the exegetical posts I put up today, starting here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...tural-rights-exist-without-government-56.html

Also:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367


They are directly derived from nature.  They are ultimately derived from God.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> False, *dblack*, on all counts.  Sophomoric gibberish.
> 
> Natural rights go to the imperatives of the human condition.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything about "natural" rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Further, your talk about civil rights is that of the unlearned laymen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, if I was "learned" I'd have access to asinine insults for rhetoric, rather than rational argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's okay for you to make fallacious arguments and tout falsehoods as if they were objective facts--making it up as you go along.   Jefferson?  The Declaration of Independence?  Ring a bell?
> 
> No.  You didn't learn any of the stuff your spouting from the actual history of natural law, and you've never read or thought much beyond the basics of political science 101.  You have no idea how evident that is to one of my learning.
> 
> For example, take your conflation of freedoms and rights (also, _freedoms vs. liberties_, _innate freedoms vs. innate rights_, or in the formal terms of civil government as opposed to those of the state of nature, _civil rights vs. civil liberties_).  But what is most telling is the fact that you apparently think that just because the terms _civil rights_ and _civil liberties_ are often or commonly used interchangeably, they necessarily and comprehensively denote the same thing.
> 
> False.
> 
> Two things are going here that you know nothing about.
> 
> One, it is in fact the agenda of the left to expunge the term _civil liberties_ from the lexicon of political science in academia and has been for decades, as the term denotes the inalienable natural rights of man as translated from the state of nature into the respective designations of civil government, namely, with regard to the Constitution of the Republic, The Bill of Rights, *dblack*, against which Congress shall make no law.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> These things go to the construct of individual liberty, hated by the left who favor the living Constitution of a systematically subverted notion of the Bill of Rights that would accommodate the construct of a collectivist democracy.
> 
> Currently, in case law, due to decisions handed down by leftist Courts, the federal government reckons certain crimes, including murder, in terms of civil rights violations depending on the circumstances, when, ultimately, what is really being violated in terms of natural law is more at violations of civil liberties.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Two, when the convention is not being intentionally abused, the context tells us what kind of rights are actually being considered relative to this distinction, though more often than not in those instances the classical liberal will make the distinction emphatic, using the terms _civil rights_ or _civil liberties_ respectively.
> 
> Digging a little deeper, the distinction goes to that between _positive rights_ and _negative rights_.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for any of this.
> 
> Civil liberties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Civil and political rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Difference between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
> 
> https://journals.law.stanford.edu/s...sjcrcl/online/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties
> 
> What Is the Difference Between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?
> 
> Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But you won't be taught, will you?  And apparently you're not going to stop pretending that your personal musings regarding matters that are subject to empirical falsification are objective facts . . . when in fact they're not.
> 
> That's insulting the intelligence of everyone here and pissing on the truth.
> 
> I don't know why you're complaining, I gave you several warnings.
Click to expand...


Hell, me neither. It's not like you're making any sense. Just equivocating on definitions like almost everybody else in the thread, and then strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn taking a "victory lap".  It's a shame too, because it's a pretty interesting topic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for a logical proof of my position. I delivered one. If you think my premises are wrong, feel free to provide something other than your assertion that they are wrong to back up your claim.
> 
> Wait, that would actually require you to debate the issues, which is work, whereas you prefer to  declare yourself the winner by acclamation, which isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it is. In fact logic is defined by the ability to reach a conclusion that is supported by two, or more, premises that may, or may not, be true.
> 
> But, please, keep pretending you understand logic.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is logical backing? I only ask because, outside of your head, I never heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> How does it not?
> 
> The neat thing about logical premises is that the rules of logic require you to assume they are true. Funny how a guy that claims that I don't have a logical backing, whatever that is, for my conclusions doesn't understand that simple rule.
> 
> By the way, the above is one reason why I prefer to make arguments based on things other than logic.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is what you are posting. I never once said anything even remotely like that.
> 
> I will, however, admit that your conclusion is completely logical, which is another reason I rarely use logic in arguments.
> 
> Funny how the guy that insisted on seeing logic suddenly discovers that he doesn't actually like logic, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you logical proof, and your brain failed to process it because it doesn't understand the terms you are using.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are*
> 
> (I started to post this the other day, but realized that the rationale might not be readily accessible to those  who do not have my background in the history of law.  The post directly underneath this one drives the facts home:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-57.html#post8888602 .  I've been busy with other things and haven't had the time to complete the standard apology for natural law.)
> 
> Please carefully consider the following.  I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> *Quantum*, I really wish you hadn't made the _Ability = Rights argument_.  While inalienable natural rights would necessarily be things that are at the very least embedded in nature, not afforded by government:  _abilities_, even those as seemingly fundamental as the ability to think and speak, are not synonymous to rights.  *G.T.* is right.  No matter how you configure your syllogism or express its respective constituents, you're not going to make that work.  The expressions of any given innate ability must be related to/weighted against their effects on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that ability is equal to rights, I argued that ability is evidence of rights.
Click to expand...


Well, okay, it appeared that you were arguing both.  I will go back tomorrow and reread your posts and will withdraw the first charge should that be the case.  What I mean to say, Quantum, as I'm not questioning your integrity, is that sometimes folks might mean one thing but express in a way that is confusing.  

If the fault is mine I will happily take the blame, for indeed, they are not synonymous as you say here.

However, ability is not the evidence of rights either, and that should never be asserted as a cardinal rule of natural law.  That contention also implies something untoward.  

Ability is an inherent trait in all things, human and nonhuman, living and nonliving in terms of rational, behavioral and chemical properties.  Ability is the fallacious principle argue by animal rights activists on both counts:  _equal to_ and _evidence of_.

Just a tip.  Otherwise, your innate brilliance is quite evident to me.  I meant no disrespect.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Gentlemen:  *

Things like _ability_ and _free will_, on the very face of them, are clearly *not* synonymous with rights of any kind. 

*Quantum, has clarified his position here; he apparently does not equate the two.*

On the other hand, *G.T. et. al.*, hey, listen up, if, as you say, things like _ability_ or _free will_ are _not_ synonymous to or evidence of  rights, and right you are, then how do you figure that knocking down these straw men lays even so much as a finger on the actuality of inalienable natural rights?

*crickets chirping*

But more to the point, what causes you to apprehend these fallacies of predication, if, as you say, no rights exist in any concrete sense prior to the abstractions of social constructs or the political rights afforded by government?

*crickets chirping*

And regarding the last question, yeah, I know, you're thinking, "What in the hell is he talking about?"

Make no mistake about it, that question wouldn't have mystified Hammurabi, Moses, Aristotle, Christ, Paul, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Sidney, Burk, Locke and others; or for that matter, it wouldn't have mystified Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon or Newton, all of whom were theologians, as well as great scientists, who grappled with the natural sociopolitical ramifications of divine law.  

And it doesn't mystify me because I've read the history of law, and have been thinking and writing about the matter for nearly three decades.  I know the nuts and bolts of natural law and the *real* arguments for the same, those that utterly destroy the post-modern, pseudo-intellectual claptrap of relativism, which is all the likes of *Rabbi and G.T. et. al.* are spouting as if they were smarter than the absolutists listed in the above or smarter than the Founders who for the most part certainly did believe that the imperatives of natural law were absolute and that the existence of inalienable natural rights was self-evident, and rightly so.   

But, by all means, go on playing with straw men, if you must, as if you were doing something more than mental masturbation.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything about "natural" rights?
> 
> 
> Yes, if I was "learned" I'd have access to asinine insults for rhetoric, rather than rational argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's okay for you to make fallacious arguments and tout falsehoods as if they were objective facts--making it up as you go along.   Jefferson?  The Declaration of Independence?  Ring a bell?
> 
> No.  You didn't learn any of the stuff your spouting from the actual history of natural law, and you've never read or thought much beyond the basics of political science 101.  You have no idea how evident that is to one of my learning.
> 
> For example, take your conflation of freedoms and rights (also, _freedoms vs. liberties_, _innate freedoms vs. innate rights_, or in the formal terms of civil government as opposed to those of the state of nature, _civil rights vs. civil liberties_).  But what is most telling is the fact that you apparently think that just because the terms _civil rights_ and _civil liberties_ are often or commonly used interchangeably, they necessarily and comprehensively denote the same thing.
> 
> False.
> 
> Two things are going here that you know nothing about.
> 
> One, it is in fact the agenda of the left to expunge the term _civil liberties_ from the lexicon of political science in academia and has been for decades, as the term denotes the inalienable natural rights of man as translated from the state of nature into the respective designations of civil government, namely, with regard to the Constitution of the Republic, The Bill of Rights, *dblack*, against which Congress shall make no law.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> These things go to the construct of individual liberty, hated by the left who favor the living Constitution of a systematically subverted notion of the Bill of Rights that would accommodate the construct of a collectivist democracy.
> 
> Currently, in case law, due to decisions handed down by leftist Courts, the federal government reckons certain crimes, including murder, in terms of civil rights violations depending on the circumstances, when, ultimately, what is really being violated in terms of natural law is more at violations of civil liberties.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Two, when the convention is not being intentionally abused, the context tells us what kind of rights are actually being considered relative to this distinction, though more often than not in those instances the classical liberal will make the distinction emphatic, using the terms _civil rights_ or _civil liberties_ respectively.
> 
> Digging a little deeper, the distinction goes to that between _positive rights_ and _negative rights_.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for any of this.
> 
> Civil liberties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Civil and political rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Difference between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
> 
> https://journals.law.stanford.edu/s...sjcrcl/online/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties
> 
> What Is the Difference Between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?
> 
> Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But you won't be taught, will you?  And apparently you're not going to stop pretending that your personal musings regarding matters that are subject to empirical falsification are objective facts . . . when in fact they're not.
> 
> That's insulting the intelligence of everyone here and pissing on the truth.
> 
> I don't know why you're complaining, I gave you several warnings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, me neither. It's not like you're making any sense. Just equivocating on definitions like almost everybody else in the thread, and then strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn taking a "victory lap".  It's a shame too, because it's a pretty interesting topic.
Click to expand...


Oh, it's not like I'm making any sense?  That is the most intellectually dishonest thing you said of all, or you simply cannot connect the dots.

No.  I am not like everybody else at all on this topic.  And that is not to say that solid facts and sound arguments are not being asserted by others.  There are one or two others on this thread who know the various distinctions and more or less have them right by the sheer quality of their minds.   You were doing just fine, until you conceded things to the relativists that you should have never conceded.

Why?  Because their arguments are so obviously wrong and so easily defeated. 

But only a fool would not recognize my expertise on the matter.  Like I said, you won't be taught, will you?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's okay for you to make fallacious arguments and tout falsehoods as if they were objective facts--making it up as you go along.   Jefferson?  The Declaration of Independence?  Ring a bell?
> 
> No.  You didn't learn any of the stuff your spouting from the actual history of natural law, and you've never read or thought much beyond the basics of political science 101.  You have no idea how evident that is to one of my learning.
> 
> For example, take your conflation of freedoms and rights (also, _freedoms vs. liberties_, _innate freedoms vs. innate rights_, or in the formal terms of civil government as opposed to those of the state of nature, _civil rights vs. civil liberties_).  But what is most telling is the fact that you apparently think that just because the terms _civil rights_ and _civil liberties_ are often or commonly used interchangeably, they necessarily and comprehensively denote the same thing.
> 
> False.
> 
> Two things are going here that you know nothing about.
> 
> One, it is in fact the agenda of the left to expunge the term _civil liberties_ from the lexicon of political science in academia and has been for decades, as the term denotes the inalienable natural rights of man as translated from the state of nature into the respective designations of civil government, namely, with regard to the Constitution of the Republic, The Bill of Rights, *dblack*, against which Congress shall make no law.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> These things go to the construct of individual liberty, hated by the left who favor the living Constitution of a systematically subverted notion of the Bill of Rights that would accommodate the construct of a collectivist democracy.
> 
> Currently, in case law, due to decisions handed down by leftist Courts, the federal government reckons certain crimes, including murder, in terms of civil rights violations depending on the circumstances, when, ultimately, what is really being violated in terms of natural law is more at violations of civil liberties.
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Two, when the convention is not being intentionally abused, the context tells us what kind of rights are actually being considered relative to this distinction, though more often than not in those instances the classical liberal will make the distinction emphatic, using the terms _civil rights_ or _civil liberties_ respectively.
> 
> Digging a little deeper, the distinction goes to that between _positive rights_ and _negative rights_.
> 
> But you don't have to take my word for any of this.
> 
> Civil liberties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Civil and political rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Difference between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
> 
> https://journals.law.stanford.edu/s...sjcrcl/online/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties
> 
> What Is the Difference Between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?
> 
> Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But you won't be taught, will you?  And apparently you're not going to stop pretending that your personal musings regarding matters that are subject to empirical falsification are objective facts . . . when in fact they're not.
> 
> That's insulting the intelligence of everyone here and pissing on the truth.
> 
> I don't know why you're complaining, I gave you several warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, me neither. It's not like you're making any sense. Just equivocating on definitions like almost everybody else in the thread, and then strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn taking a "victory lap".  It's a shame too, because it's a pretty interesting topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's not like I'm making any sense?  That is the most intellectually dishonest thing you said of all, or you simply cannot connect the dots.
Click to expand...


To be fair, I'm not really reading your posts anyway. I mean, I read up until you become obnoxious and rude, but that usually happens right out of the gate, so my critique of your position is, admittedly, not fully informed. You'd probably be more persuasive if you weren't such a dick.


----------



## dcraelin

Quantum Windbag said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that I was pointing out his inconsistent position, don't you? He actually went to jail over that 7 words routine because it violated local laws, not just the FCC regulations. He also took the fight about the words all the way to the Supreme Court.
> Like I said, interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> no i didnt get that from your post,.......just read some about it on wikipedia and I dont think it was him that took it all the way to the supreme court.
> He maybe was being a bit inconsistent, but I think hes mainly pointing to idea that rights are dependent on governments and I would like to think he agrees with Jefferson in what he says in the picture I posted previously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect the world to change simply because you believe something that isn't true.
Click to expand...


So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .





http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.
> 
> Here's your actual argument in the face of the facts of the imperatives of self-preservation:  there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; hence, the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false.
> 
> I don't need to refute you.  You refute yourself.
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what's with the imperative BS ?  Is this Star Trek ?
> 
> We are free to do whatever we like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said we weren't.  But violate the imperatives, i.e., cross the constraints of _Ought_, and watch what happens.  You shall have to fight, flee or submit.  There's your freedom.
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


There is an increased need to flee fight or submit when government enters to picture to "help" us.


----------



## midcan5

M.D. Rawlings said:


> ...Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he....



In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket. 

An old post but kinda related, change freedom to rights.  And yes, DBlack debate must have a grounding in reality or it is meaningless, fun I grant you. 

- The paradox of Freedom  Is freedom real -

Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail. 

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value. 

If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free? 

with apologies to Adam Swift


----------



## dilloduck

midcan5 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket.
> 
> An old post but kinda related, change freedom to rights.  And yes, DBlack debate must have a grounding in reality or it is meaningless, fun I grant you.
> 
> - The paradox of Freedom  Is freedom real -
> 
> Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.
> 
> One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
> 
> If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?
> 
> with apologies to Adam Swift
Click to expand...


They are all free to obtain the necessary resources. If you chose not to play by the reality scenario that has been established in your environment you will have to use extraordinary means to get to your goal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dcraelin said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> no i didnt get that from your post,.......just read some about it on wikipedia and I dont think it was him that took it all the way to the supreme court.
> He maybe was being a bit inconsistent, but I think hes mainly pointing to idea that rights are dependent on governments and I would like to think he agrees with Jefferson in what he says in the picture I posted previously.
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect the world to change simply because you believe something that isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg
Click to expand...


I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion. 

By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket.
> 
> An old post but kinda related, change freedom to rights.  And yes, DBlack debate must have a grounding in reality or it is meaningless, fun I grant you.
> 
> - The paradox of Freedom  Is freedom real -
> 
> Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.
> 
> One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
> 
> If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?
> 
> with apologies to Adam Swift
Click to expand...


When was our premise that they all have equal freedom? The premise here is that they all have identical natural rights. The evidence of that is the fact that they all decided to travel, despite the fact that they live under different government systems. The fact that rights exist does not mean everyone will get identical results anymore than putting them all on a track to race would mean that they all win.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, me neither. It's not like you're making any sense. Just equivocating on definitions like almost everybody else in the thread, and then strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn taking a "victory lap".  It's a shame too, because it's a pretty interesting topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's not like I'm making any sense?  That is the most intellectually dishonest thing you said of all, or you simply cannot connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, I'm not really reading your posts anyway. I mean, I read up until you become obnoxious and rude, but that usually happens right out of the gate, so my critique of your position is, admittedly, not fully informed. You'd probably be more persuasive if you weren't such a dick.
Click to expand...


Look, *dblack*, my first post on this thread didn't contain anything but a as brief as possible description of what natural law and natural rights are in the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding, a fairly complex topic.  *Rabbi's* response:  "babbling nonsense."  There's a history here you don't know about.  When I first came to this board a few years ago, Rabbi blindsided me on another thread about this very same topic with the same kind of post.  I responded by citing historical facts and made a few very simple arguments from them, and I wasn't a dick about it.  He flames me again.  No consideration of the contents of the post whatsoever.

You think Rabbi's not a dick.

This time around, I simply didn't put with it.

I got the same kind of thing from *G.T.* on this thread, and you know what post I'm talking about because you and I responded to it.  In THAT response I wasn't a dick.  I firmly, yet fairly, suggested he actually show us why I'm wrong rather than simply saying I'm wrong.  Anyone can do the latter.  Prove it.

I can be a dick, I know, but not usually in the way that you mean.  If one is actually exchanging ideas with me in good faith, even if I disagree with one, I never flame one.  I don&#8217;t make fun of one or ridicule one, though I might ridicule an idea or an argument made by one, albeit, backed by a real argument.  But when one is attacking the contents of my posts, as G.T. and you did, without actually reading or thinking about them. . . .

How can I tell?  Because none of you have ever directly cited anything, just pooh-poohed the contents via some slogan or another.

Ask *Sallow* if he thinks I'm a dick.  Maybe he does, but he also knows that I have always read and thought about his posts, and answered their contents directly and thoroughly. 

Perhaps you're a bit biased regarding the manner in which atheists and relativists, in particular, *routinely* talk about theists/absolutists and their ideas *from the jump* in this post-modern world of ours all over this board, you know, as if theists/absolutists were idiots, while the former never make any real argument of any kind and never even bother to read or think about anything the theists/absolutists say on this board as they blast them . . . because, after all, everybody knows the theists/absolutists' beliefs are passé, right?

You don't think that's annoying?  Consider the fact that I am a theist and an absolutist in a post-modern world who has to deal with persons who routinely talk to me like that.

Come on.  Everybody knows that the biggest, most arrogant dicks in the world are atheists.  And you want to know why?  Because the fact of the matter is that there's really nothing backing their conviction but the veneer of sneer and superiority, so I give it right back at 'em in spades, albeit, backed by real arguments.  I don't like bullies, especially when they beat on decent folks who may not know, as I do, where the bodies lie just below the top soil concerning the seemingly cogent but utterly fallacious arguments of atheists.

Atheistic leftists are an especially vicious breed, or haven't you noticed?    

But anyone who's entire worldview is prefaced on the notion that there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, has got a real problem that he's utterly unaware of.  Where does such an idiot get off making those of us who know better out to be fools?

You want to know why the typical  leftist's thought processes are so crazy?  Because that's what they're ultimately based on, something crazy, inherently contradictory and self-negating.

How else do you get the fool's attention but unman, as it were, his vanity.

Yeah.  Lots of folks think I'm a dick.  Believe me.  I know that.  But there's rhyme to the reason of my dickness. 

And by the way, there are two other side exchanges I'm involved in on this thread where there is no rancor at all, though there be disagreement, because the persons with whom I'm speaking make direct arguments regarding the contents of my posts and vice versa.  You want to know how often I give rep to those with whom I disagree and even to those, like you, whom I know do not read me because they think I'm a dick?  All the time, every time I see a well executed argument made in good faith, whether I agree with it or not.  I've even given *Sallow* rep before, at least twice, and we've never agreed on anything that I know of. 

I give Rabbi rep all the time too, because more often than not, he makes good sense, though I know he dislikes me.  LOL! 

Good faith.

You want to know how much of that is on this board or in the world?  Very little.  

Notwithstanding, I do regret the way in which I spoke to you in that last post; I actually felt that way a few hours after posting it.  It was unnecessarily harsh.  I apologize.


----------



## Foxfyre

midcan5 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket.
> 
> An old post but kinda related, change freedom to rights.  And yes, DBlack debate must have a grounding in reality or it is meaningless, fun I grant you.
> 
> - The paradox of Freedom  Is freedom real -
> 
> Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.
> 
> One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
> 
> If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?
> 
> with apologies to Adam Swift
Click to expand...


But again isn't it a question of what a 'natural right' is?  The Founders, and the great philosophes they studied, defined natural rights it as that which requires no participation or contribution by any other.  

To be Christian, to be Atheist, to be gay, to be straight, to be leftwing or rightwing, to be artistic, to be fascinated with the paranormal, to do housework in the nude, to be kind, to be bigoted, to be prejudiced, to be irrational, to be  kind, to be hateful, or to be or do or think or speak of whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other. . . all that is what natural rights are.  

Once participation or contribution is required of any other person, or another's rights are interfered with, it is no longer a right, but it becomes a privilege or social contract that should be negotiated with the other.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Notwithstanding, I do regret the way in which I spoke to you in that last post; I actually felt that way a few hours after posting it.  It was unnecessarily harsh.  I apologize.



Thanks for saying so. I look forward to reading your posts 'fresh'.


----------



## PaulS1950

Natural rights do exist.

evidence:
all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)

All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.

As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.


----------



## dilloduck

PaulS1950 said:


> Natural rights do exist.
> 
> evidence:
> all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)
> 
> All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.
> 
> As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.



Self defense isn't a right. It is an instinct.


----------



## PaulS1950

dilloduck said:


> Self defense isn't a right. It is an instinct.




Because it is an instinct it is a right of birth. You just reinforced my point.


----------



## dilloduck

PaulS1950 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self defense isn't a right. It is an instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is an instinct it is a right of birth. You just reinforced my point.
Click to expand...


DOH

It is just what living things do. There are no rights involved. You're argument is akin to saying that because the sun shines it has a right to shine.


----------



## PaulS1950

dilloduck said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self defense isn't a right. It is an instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is an instinct it is a right of birth. You just reinforced my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DOH
> 
> It is just what living things do. There are no rights involved. You're argument is akin to saying that because the sun shines it has a right to shine.
Click to expand...


The sun is not a living thing - it is a chemical/nuclear reaction that is defined by its composition and size. An ant or coral has the instinct (natural right) to defend itself.


----------



## dilloduck

PaulS1950 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is an instinct it is a right of birth. You just reinforced my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOH
> 
> It is just what living things do. There are no rights involved. You're argument is akin to saying that because the sun shines it has a right to shine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sun is not a living thing - it is a chemical/nuclear reaction that is defined by its composition and size. An ant or coral has the instinct (natural right) to defend itself.
Click to expand...


So it doesn't have the right to shine ?


----------



## gnarlylove

midcan5 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket.
Click to expand...


MD sorry I never got to your eloquent post. But this is my precise point. There is no such thing as natural rights. Humans are born, live and die. There are no rights that can be fundamentally and innately attributed to us any more than snakes attribute rights to other snakes. We must first exist AND possess conscious faculties in order to articulate natural rights in a coherent fashion. Only then do they take on meaning; and the meaning ascribed is not absolute. It changes from era to era.

Now the debate about what are natural rights takes on two tasks. A descriptive and prescriptive task. Descriptive is how our biological and innate structures gives rise to moral action. This has only begun to make progress since the 90s, likely having originated with Chomsky in linguistics during the 50s.

The prescriptive task has been a mostly fluid discussion and has sloshed from one side to the other for millennia. There is a range within most humans behave and this likely refers back to a biological component but is not determined solely by that. Our desire and abilities come into focus and help determine our actual action. This is what we are debating about.

The prescription is a question of ethics, not natural rights. Natural rights is a way of understanding prescriptive ethics, albeit a useful one. Nevertheless, it possesses no more inherent qualities than does any other passing thought. To be sure, I certainly agree to a universal norm and only then does moral action take on a sensible. That's why you think natural rights are inherent, because they must exist universally in order to carry weight. But don't mistake universal for inherent qualities. I doubt I need to explain them to you...


----------



## gnarlylove

dilloduck said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOH
> 
> It is just what living things do. There are no rights involved. You're argument is akin to saying that because the sun shines it has a right to shine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sun is not a living thing - it is a chemical/nuclear reaction that is defined by its composition and size. An ant or coral has the instinct (natural right) to defend itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it doesn't have the right to shine ?
Click to expand...


That is not a meaningful question. Inanimate things don't possess "rights" as rights are the result of consciousness. However, Locke proposed a very interesting dilemma: thinking matter. Perhaps our brain simply is designed to pick up thoughts of matter and so all matter, not just us, is thinking. We cannot empirically verify this (yet) and so the sun may have thoughts about shining. But as it stands, I don't think "right to shine" should be mistaken for "it does shine." In the way you use right it can only mean it's continues and will continue to shine day in and day out because that's what it does i.e. "its right."

Like your avatar. Do you consider yin and yang to be meaningful to your life or just a "cool symbol?"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket.
> 
> An old post but kinda related, change freedom to rights.  And yes, DBlack debate must have a grounding in reality or it is meaningless, fun I grant you.
> 
> - The paradox of Freedom  Is freedom real -
> 
> Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.
> 
> One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
> 
> If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?
> 
> with apologies to Adam Swift
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again isn't it a question of what a 'natural right' is?  The Founders, and the great philosophes they studied, defined natural rights it as that which requires no participation or contribution by any other.
> 
> To be Christian, to be Atheist, to be gay, to be straight, to be leftwing or rightwing, to be artistic, to be fascinated with the paranormal, to do housework in the nude, to be kind, to be bigoted, to be prejudiced, to be irrational, to be  kind, to be hateful, or to be or do or think or speak of whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other. . . all that is what natural rights are.
> 
> Once participation or contribution is required of any other person, or another's rights are interfered with, it is no longer a right, but it becomes a privilege or social contract that should be negotiated with the other.
Click to expand...


And that is a brilliantly crafted summary of the dichotomic means by which the exact identity and parameters of natural rights are apprehended:  light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions _and_ its correlate initial force-defensive force.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket.
> 
> An old post but kinda related, change freedom to rights.  And yes, DBlack debate must have a grounding in reality or it is meaningless, fun I grant you.
> 
> - The paradox of Freedom  Is freedom real -
> 
> Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second totalitarian. All the woman believe that they live in complete individual freedom. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without a ticket. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.
> 
> One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissar and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their freedom two couldn't, yet each held the same value.
> 
> If our original premise is they all have equal freedom, why are the results within these two distinct states similar? While the answer is obvious can we then say a person with limited resources is free?
> 
> with apologies to Adam Swift
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again isn't it a question of what a 'natural right' is?  The Founders, and the great philosophes they studied, defined natural rights it as that which requires no participation or contribution by any other.
> 
> To be Christian, to be Atheist, to be gay, to be straight, to be leftwing or rightwing, to be artistic, to be fascinated with the paranormal, to do housework in the nude, to be kind, to be bigoted, to be prejudiced, to be irrational, to be  kind, to be hateful, or to be or do or think or speak of whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other. . . all that is what natural rights are.
> 
> Once participation or contribution is required of any other person, or another's rights are interfered with, it is no longer a right, but it becomes a privilege or social contract that should be negotiated with the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is a brilliantly crafted summary of the dichotomic means by which the exact identity and parameters of natural rights are apprehended:  light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions _and_ its correlate initial force-defensive force.
Click to expand...


LOL.  I am not quite certain what you said here, but I think you might be agreeing with me on what a natural right is????  

But if we accept the definition of a natural right as anything that does not require participation or contribution by any other, then we also have a working defiinition of what tolerance is.

Tolerance is that which recognizes and accepts the natural rights of others to be who and what they are so long as no contribution or participation is required of others.

To extend that to inanimate objects or creatures who have no choice but to be who and and what they are--the sun that shines, the bee that buzzes, the bird that sings, etc.--is just silly.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dcraelin said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> no i didnt get that from your post,.......just read some about it on wikipedia and I dont think it was him that took it all the way to the supreme court.
> He maybe was being a bit inconsistent, but I think hes mainly pointing to idea that rights are dependent on governments and I would like to think he agrees with Jefferson in what he says in the picture I posted previously.
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect the world to change simply because you believe something that isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg
Click to expand...


So did Locke, but Locke, unlike Hobbes, understood why life was like that in the state of nature.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



We the People secure our own individual rights because We the People are the government. 

That is the concept. Reality is where things become less cut and dried.


----------



## gnarlylove

Marx RESPONDS to dblack:

A Critique of Classic liberal principles of free competition...inevitably hindering capitalism, ambivalent ingredients to capitalism:



			
				Karl Marx said:
			
		

> the absurdity of considering free competition as being the final development of human liberty....The development of what free competition is, is the only rational answer to the deification of it by the middle-class prophets, or its bedevilment by the socialists. If it is said that, within the limits of free competition, individuals by following their pure self-interest realize their soical or rather their general interests, this means merely that they exert pressure upon one another under conditions of capitalist production and that collision between them can only again give rise to the vonditions under which their interaction took place. Moreover, once the illusion that competition is the ostensible absolute form of free individuality disappears, this proves that the conditions of competition i.e. production founded on capital, are already felt and thought of as a barrier, as indeed they already are and will increasingly become so. The assertion that free competition is the final form of the development of productive forces, and thus of human freedom, means only that the domination of the middle class is the end of the world's history--of course quite a pleasant thought for yesterday's parvenus [rich]!


 _Grundrisse_ pg. 31

In other words, if you think we attain our self-realization through free markets and private pursuits, we will be naturally led back to the conditions of enslavement by those to whom capital attracts. As capital accumulates to these individuals, they find freedom and free competition increasingly a threat to capital accumulation. Thus, as Marx says, it becomes a fancy thought to those who have become wealthy, "yesterday's parvenus" although it is not based in reality.

Hence your ideology rests on a fundamental flaw and willful blindness to history and reality. That's why so many people think your ideas are not grounded in reality or maybe it's me signing in as other people making the same claim. Either way, loads!


----------



## Foxfyre

gnarlylove said:


> Marx RESPONDS to dblack:
> 
> A Critique of Classic liberal principles of free competition...inevitably hindering capitalism, ambivalent ingredients to capitalism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the absurdity of considering free competition as being the final development of human liberty....The development of what free competition is, is the only rational answer to the deification of it by the middle-class prophets, or its bedevilment by the socialists. If it is said that, within the limits of free competition, individuals by following their pure self-interest realize their soical or rather their general interests, this means merely that they exert pressure upon one another under conditions of capitalist production and that collision between them can only again give rise to the vonditions under which their interaction took place. Moreover, once the illusion that competition is the ostensible absolute form of free individuality disappears, this proves that the conditions of competition i.e. production founded on capital, are already felt and thought of as a barrier, as indeed they already are and will increasingly become so. The assertion that free competition is the final form of the development of productive forces, and thus of human freedom, means only that the domination of the middle class is the end of the world's history--of course quite a pleasant thought for yesterday's parvenus [rich]!
> 
> 
> 
> _Grundrisse_ pg. 31
> 
> In other words, if you think we attain our self-realization through free markets and private pursuits, we will be naturally led back to the conditions of enslavement by those to whom capital attracts. As capital accumulates to these individuals, they find freedom and free competition increasingly a threat to capital accumulation. Thus, as Marx says, it becomes a fancy thought to those who have become wealthy, "yesterday's parvenus" although it is not based in reality.
> 
> Hence your ideology rests on a fundamental flaw and willful blindness to history and reality. That's why so many people think your ideas are not grounded in reality or maybe it's me signing in as other people making the same claim. Either way, loads!
Click to expand...


The rebuttal to your argument here, however, is that in Marx's day, there was no such concept as self governance by the people in existence, nor had there ever been such in the history of the world.

The whole of the Constitution is a concept of a government that will provide the common defense to secure our rights, that will enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one strong nation, and then will recognize the unalienable right of the people to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and govern themselves.

In such a society, there cannot be prevention of competition, except on a very small scale via social contract, and nobody is able to be opportunistic more than anybody else because the unalienable rights of all are protected and defended.  Thus the people themselves are unrestricted in seeking and striving for whatever goals do not infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## dilloduck

gnarlylove said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sun is not a living thing - it is a chemical/nuclear reaction that is defined by its composition and size. An ant or coral has the instinct (natural right) to defend itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it doesn't have the right to shine ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a meaningful question. Inanimate things don't possess "rights" as rights are the result of consciousness. However, Locke proposed a very interesting dilemma: thinking matter. Perhaps our brain simply is designed to pick up thoughts of matter and so all matter, not just us, is thinking. We cannot empirically verify this (yet) and so the sun may have thoughts about shining. But as it stands, I don't think "right to shine" should be mistaken for "it does shine." In the way you use right it can only mean it's continues and will continue to shine day in and day out because that's what it does i.e. "its right."
> 
> Like your avatar. Do you consider yin and yang to be meaningful to your life or just a "cool symbol?"
Click to expand...


People are damned and determined to interpret what things do as a "right". 
Yin and yang are simple concepts in a meaningless existence. I like them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.
> 
> But no.  Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.
> 
> Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not.  So governments do not confer rights.  What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.
> 
> The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is.  That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is.  A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.
> 
> A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your position.  It is mine too.
> 
> However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread.  It is a mess.
> 
> While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  I read enough of it to see the mess.
> 
> I don't think ideology has that much to do with it though our ideology does seem to be a component on whether a person is able to focus on and analyze and intelligently discuss a concept or will rather focus on and attack/criticize/belittle/ridicule/blame other people.
> 
> For instance I think the leftists/political class/statists/progressives/modern day liberals cannot wrap their mind around a concept of natural or unalienable rights.  They don't understand it, can't define it, and certainly can't appreciate it.  Which is why they are who they are I suppose.  They will most often describe a right as what people ought to embrace, ought to require, ought to defend in their opinion.  A concept of live and let live just isn't in their psyche.
> 
> And I hasten to add that there are also some on the right who are just that fixated in their ideology and just as inflexible in their understandings.
> 
> But I do think more on the right can and do understand what unalienable rights are and why recognition of them and defense of them is necessarily for liberty to exist.
Click to expand...


LOL!


It's the _Is-Ought_ dichotomy of what _is_ mine verses what _ought_ to be the state's according to the psychological trappings of progressivism.

The imperatives of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are the _Is_.  As translated from the state of nature, the latter are the civil liberties that are not to be abridged by Congress.

The leftist's slate of extra-constitutional rights piled on top of the fundamental civil rights of political necessity are the _ought_ systematically suppressing the free exercise of civil liberties.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx RESPONDS to dblack:
> 
> A Critique of Classic liberal principles of free competition...inevitably hindering capitalism, ambivalent ingredients to capitalism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the absurdity of considering free competition as being the final development of human liberty....The development of what free competition is, is the only rational answer to the deification of it by the middle-class prophets, or its bedevilment by the socialists. If it is said that, within the limits of free competition, individuals by following their pure self-interest realize their soical or rather their general interests, this means merely that they exert pressure upon one another under conditions of capitalist production and that collision between them can only again give rise to the vonditions under which their interaction took place. Moreover, once the illusion that competition is the ostensible absolute form of free individuality disappears, this proves that the conditions of competition i.e. production founded on capital, are already felt and thought of as a barrier, as indeed they already are and will increasingly become so. The assertion that free competition is the final form of the development of productive forces, and thus of human freedom, means only that the domination of the middle class is the end of the world's history--of course quite a pleasant thought for yesterday's parvenus [rich]!
> 
> 
> 
> _Grundrisse_ pg. 31
> 
> In other words, if you think we attain our self-realization through free markets and private pursuits, we will be naturally led back to the conditions of enslavement by those to whom capital attracts. As capital accumulates to these individuals, they find freedom and free competition increasingly a threat to capital accumulation. Thus, as Marx says, it becomes a fancy thought to those who have become wealthy, "yesterday's parvenus" although it is not based in reality.
> 
> Hence your ideology rests on a fundamental flaw and willful blindness to history and reality. That's why so many people think your ideas are not grounded in reality or maybe it's me signing in as other people making the same claim. Either way, loads!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The rebuttal to your argument here, however, is that in Marx's day, there was no such concept as self governance by the people in existence, nor had there ever been such in the history of the world.*
> 
> The whole of the Constitution is a concept of a government that will provide the common defense to secure our rights, that will enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one strong nation, and then will recognize the unalienable right of the people to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and govern themselves.
> 
> In such a society, there cannot be prevention of competition, except on a very small scale via social contract, and nobody is able to be opportunistic more than anybody else because the unalienable rights of all are protected and defended.  Thus the people themselves are unrestricted in seeking and striving for whatever goals do not infringe on the rights of others.
Click to expand...


That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.

The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.


----------



## gnarlylove

Foxfyre said:


> The rebuttal to your argument here, however, is that in Marx's day, there was no such concept as self governance by the people in existence, nor had there ever been such in the history of the world.
> 
> The whole of the Constitution is a concept of a government that will provide the common defense to secure our rights, that will enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one strong nation, and then will recognize the unalienable right of the people to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and govern themselves.
> 
> In such a society, there cannot be prevention of competition, except on a very small scale via social contract, and nobody is able to be opportunistic more than anybody else because the unalienable rights of all are protected and defended.  Thus the people themselves are unrestricted in seeking and striving for whatever goals do not infringe on the rights of others.



I don't think you know what you're talking about. It centers around a religious notion that the Constitution was the first holy document of autonomy. Marx wasn't around during 19th century is like saying you don't exist now. Since you didn't know, Marx was born half a century after the founding of America and that holy document.

But to think human beings had not discovered autonomy until 1776 just shows how little you know about history. I refer you to Aristotle's _Politics_. "Discovering" self-governance is like saying human beings woke up and realized they control their own life. Do you think that didn't exist until 1776? What did humans do before this sudden "realization?"

Plus your idea of self-government doesn't hold water. Show me anything that remotely resembles self-governance among the elite, who, in a free market, accumulate capital inevitably. It hasn't been done. Not in 1929 in the first major market crash and certainly not under our current world of Goldman's Sachs high frequency trading. Self-governance is fictions among those who are attracted to wealth and power.

I respect your try but you need to do more self-education to make conversation worthwhile, unless, of course, you don't think reality matters--and there are many who watch Fox and believe it though it has few ties to reality. Non-reality based belief systems and Oprah like fideism are becoming increasingly popular as reality increasingly encroaches on us, starting with the vulnerable.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx RESPONDS to dblack:
> 
> A Critique of Classic liberal principles of free competition...inevitably hindering capitalism, ambivalent ingredients to capitalism:
> 
> _Grundrisse_ pg. 31
> 
> In other words, if you think we attain our self-realization through free markets and private pursuits, we will be naturally led back to the conditions of enslavement by those to whom capital attracts. As capital accumulates to these individuals, they find freedom and free competition increasingly a threat to capital accumulation. Thus, as Marx says, it becomes a fancy thought to those who have become wealthy, "yesterday's parvenus" although it is not based in reality.
> 
> Hence your ideology rests on a fundamental flaw and willful blindness to history and reality. That's why so many people think your ideas are not grounded in reality or maybe it's me signing in as other people making the same claim. Either way, loads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The rebuttal to your argument here, however, is that in Marx's day, there was no such concept as self governance by the people in existence, nor had there ever been such in the history of the world.*
> 
> The whole of the Constitution is a concept of a government that will provide the common defense to secure our rights, that will enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one strong nation, and then will recognize the unalienable right of the people to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and govern themselves.
> 
> In such a society, there cannot be prevention of competition, except on a very small scale via social contract, and nobody is able to be opportunistic more than anybody else because the unalienable rights of all are protected and defended.  Thus the people themselves are unrestricted in seeking and striving for whatever goals do not infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.
> 
> *The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution* and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.
Click to expand...


Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx RESPONDS to dblack:
> 
> A Critique of Classic liberal principles of free competition...inevitably hindering capitalism, ambivalent ingredients to capitalism:
> 
> _Grundrisse_ pg. 31
> 
> In other words, if you think we attain our self-realization through free markets and private pursuits, we will be naturally led back to the conditions of enslavement by those to whom capital attracts. As capital accumulates to these individuals, they find freedom and free competition increasingly a threat to capital accumulation. Thus, as Marx says, it becomes a fancy thought to those who have become wealthy, "yesterday's parvenus" although it is not based in reality.
> 
> Hence your ideology rests on a fundamental flaw and willful blindness to history and reality. That's why so many people think your ideas are not grounded in reality or maybe it's me signing in as other people making the same claim. Either way, loads!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The rebuttal to your argument here, however, is that in Marx's day, there was no such concept as self governance by the people in existence, nor had there ever been such in the history of the world.*
> 
> The whole of the Constitution is a concept of a government that will provide the common defense to secure our rights, that will enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one strong nation, and then will recognize the unalienable right of the people to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and govern themselves.
> 
> In such a society, there cannot be prevention of competition, except on a very small scale via social contract, and nobody is able to be opportunistic more than anybody else because the unalienable rights of all are protected and defended.  Thus the people themselves are unrestricted in seeking and striving for whatever goals do not infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.
> 
> The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.
Click to expand...


Self governance is NOT democracy, though a self governing social contract can include democratic processes.  Self governance means that the people themselves, not leaders, elected or otherwise, will determine what the rules will apply in their society.  No other nation or government has ever been organized on such a basis.


----------



## dilloduck

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The rebuttal to your argument here, however, is that in Marx's day, there was no such concept as self governance by the people in existence, nor had there ever been such in the history of the world.*
> 
> The whole of the Constitution is a concept of a government that will provide the common defense to secure our rights, that will enact sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one strong nation, and then will recognize the unalienable right of the people to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and govern themselves.
> 
> In such a society, there cannot be prevention of competition, except on a very small scale via social contract, and nobody is able to be opportunistic more than anybody else because the unalienable rights of all are protected and defended.  Thus the people themselves are unrestricted in seeking and striving for whatever goals do not infringe on the rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.
> 
> *The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution* and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.
Click to expand...


Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.


----------



## gnarlylove

dilloduck said:


> People are damned and determined to interpret what things do as a "right".



Well put. I agree. It's hard to talk about it any other way. But we need to keep a clear and rigorous mind from falling into folly. Though I don't consider this folly per se.



dilloduck said:


> Yin and yang are simple concepts in a meaningless existence. I like them.



I would urge you to look into Tai Chi, Tao Te Ching among others for a foundation to why you might like them even more. They are deeply meaningful, if understood properly, and can help balance life in this modern schizophrenic world. It may provide existence a meaning. Considering existence meaningless tends to devalue it when we like to and value other parts. Naturally pleasure is desired and pain is repulsed. But to live according to that narrow and meaningless system is to limit one's existence. If you don't think you can ever get into say Tai Chi Taoism or whatever you fancy that values existence, then perhaps mushrooms can guide you on that path. If I were to take them I would do it with guide.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PaulS1950 said:


> Natural rights do exist.
> 
> evidence:
> all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)
> 
> All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.
> 
> As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.



Indeed.  Though in the absence of sentience and moral decision, the innate abilities of self-defense and expression cannot be asserted as _rights_.  This is the nexus at which the relativist fails to apprehend the fact that sentience and moral decision are the innate attributes of a specific category of life in nature.  They precede government.  The only abstract aspect of them is the manner in which they are translated from the state of nature into the terms of civil government.

*This brings us to Quantum's point that abilities are the evidence of rights.  I now trust that this is his point:  he didn't mean ability in the generic sense abused by animal rights activists, for example, but ability strictly in the sense of human attributes.  

I see what Quantum must have been getting at now, and would certainly agree with that.

I withdraw my criticism, for that is the sense in which natural law formally asserts the matter.

Quantum?*


----------



## gnarlylove

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights do exist.
> 
> evidence:
> all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)
> 
> All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.
> 
> As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though in the absence of sentience and moral decision, the innate abilities of self-defense and expression cannot be asserted as _rights_.  This is the nexus at which the relativist fails to apprehend the fact that sentience and moral decision are the innate attributes of a specific category of life in nature.  They precede government.  The only abstract aspect of them is the manner in which they are translated from the state of nature into the terms of civil government.
> 
> *This brings us to Quantum's point that abilities are the evidence of rights.  I now trust that this is his point:  he didn't mean ability in the generic sense abused by animal rights activists, for example, but ability strictly in the sense of human attributes.
> 
> I see what Quantum must have been getting at now, and would certainly agree with that.
> 
> I withdraw my criticism, for that is the sense in which natural law formally asserts the matter.
> 
> Quantum?*
Click to expand...

*

My instinct as an abused lion or person is to take what's mine because its been taken from me. So my instinct says if I want life I need food and shelter because it's so cold and I'm so hungry I'm about to die. So I see lights and head towards these nice white folks (do different tones have different rights?) I abduct them and thus earn my life. It is my right to life and I was at death so I choose life instead of giving up my right and dying on the streets.

Was this my right to life?

"No because you invaded someone elses life."

Yeah, so my instinct was to choose life and I have a right to life so the only feasible way I was going to maintain life was to take it with or without force.

Natural rights are rooted in Western notions of civilization as evinced above. That is not to be mistaken for their truth or reality. And while we apparently have the right to exist as long as we have the money to exist, it seems awfully suspiciously anti-human when it comes to poor humans. Why do they not have the right to take what's been taken from them?*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights do exist.
> 
> evidence:
> all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)
> 
> All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.
> 
> As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though in the absence of sentience and moral decision, the innate abilities of self-defense and expression cannot be asserted as _rights_.  This is the nexus at which the relativist fails to apprehend the fact that sentience and moral decision are the innate attributes of a specific category of life in nature.  They precede government.  The only abstract aspect of them is the manner in which they are translated from the state of nature into the terms of civil government.
> 
> *This brings us to Quantum's point that abilities are the evidence of rights.  I now trust that this is his point:  he didn't mean ability in the generic sense abused by animal rights activists, for example, but ability strictly in the sense of human attributes.
> 
> I see what Quantum must have been getting at now, and would certainly agree with that.
> 
> I withdraw my criticism, for that is the sense in which natural law formally asserts the matter.
> 
> Quantum?*
Click to expand...

*

Close enough.*


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights do exist.
> 
> evidence:
> all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)
> 
> All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.
> 
> As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though in the absence of sentience and moral decision, the innate abilities of self-defense and expression cannot be asserted as _rights_.  This is the nexus at which the relativist fails to apprehend the fact that sentience and moral decision are the innate attributes of a specific category of life in nature.  They precede government.  The only abstract aspect of them is the manner in which they are translated from the state of nature into the terms of civil government.
> 
> *This brings us to Quantum's point that abilities are the evidence of rights.  I now trust that this is his point:  he didn't mean ability in the generic sense abused by animal rights activists, for example, but ability strictly in the sense of human attributes.
> 
> I see what Quantum must have been getting at now, and would certainly agree with that.
> 
> I withdraw my criticism, for that is the sense in which natural law formally asserts the matter.
> 
> Quantum?*
Click to expand...

*

Society abhors any self expression that defies the consensus. And our government is quite busy censoring it.*


----------



## dilloduck

gnarlylove said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights do exist.
> 
> evidence:
> all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)
> 
> All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.
> 
> As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though in the absence of sentience and moral decision, the innate abilities of self-defense and expression cannot be asserted as _rights_.  This is the nexus at which the relativist fails to apprehend the fact that sentience and moral decision are the innate attributes of a specific category of life in nature.  They precede government.  The only abstract aspect of them is the manner in which they are translated from the state of nature into the terms of civil government.
> 
> *This brings us to Quantum's point that abilities are the evidence of rights.  I now trust that this is his point:  he didn't mean ability in the generic sense abused by animal rights activists, for example, but ability strictly in the sense of human attributes.
> 
> I see what Quantum must have been getting at now, and would certainly agree with that.
> 
> I withdraw my criticism, for that is the sense in which natural law formally asserts the matter.
> 
> Quantum?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> My instinct as an abused lion or person is to take what's mine because its been taken from me. So my instinct says if I want life I need food and shelter because it's so cold and I'm so hungry I'm about to die. So I see lights and head towards these nice white folks (do different tones have different rights?) I abduct them and thus earn my life. It is my right to life and I was at death so I choose life instead of giving up my right and dying on the streets.
> 
> Was this my right to life?
> 
> "No because you invaded someone elses life."
> 
> Yeah, so my instinct was to choose life and I have a right to life so the only feasible way I was going to maintain life was to take it with or without force.
> 
> Natural rights are rooted in Western notions of civilization as evinced above. That is not to be mistaken for their truth or reality. And while we apparently have the right to exist as long as we have the money to exist, it seems awfully suspiciously anti-human when it comes to poor humans. Why do they not have the right to take what's been taken from them?*
Click to expand...

*

They have the  right to do whatever they like and everyone else has the right to stop them.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Marx RESPONDS to dblack:
> 
> A Critique of Classic liberal principles of free competition...inevitably hindering capitalism, ambivalent ingredients to capitalism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the absurdity of considering free competition as being the final development of human liberty....The development of what free competition is, is the only rational answer to the deification of it by the middle-class prophets, or its bedevilment by the socialists. If it is said that, within the limits of free competition, individuals by following their pure self-interest realize their soical or rather their general interests, this means merely that they exert pressure upon one another under conditions of capitalist production and that collision between them can only again give rise to the vonditions under which their interaction took place. Moreover, once the illusion that competition is the ostensible absolute form of free individuality disappears, this proves that the conditions of competition i.e. production founded on capital, are already felt and thought of as a barrier, as indeed they already are and will increasingly become so. The assertion that free competition is the final form of the development of productive forces, and thus of human freedom, means only that the domination of the middle class is the end of the world's history--of course quite a pleasant thought for yesterday's parvenus [rich]!
> 
> 
> 
> _Grundrisse_ pg. 31
> 
> In other words, if you think we attain our self-realization through free markets and private pursuits, we will be naturally led back to the conditions of enslavement by those to whom capital attracts. As capital accumulates to these individuals, they find freedom and free competition increasingly a threat to capital accumulation. Thus, as Marx says, it becomes a fancy thought to those who have become wealthy, "yesterday's parvenus" although it is not based in reality.
> 
> Hence your ideology rests on a fundamental flaw and willful blindness to history and reality. That's why so many people think your ideas are not grounded in reality or maybe it's me signing in as other people making the same claim. Either way, loads!
Click to expand...


We all saw how well Marx's philosophy worked, yet you are still using him to try to prove that a system that actually outlasted it is an abject failure.

Do you also believe in alchemy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.
> 
> *The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution* and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
Click to expand...


Yet, somehow, declaring that they don't actually does make it so, despite the fact that multiple posters have actually provided evidence that natural rights exist, and not a single poster who disagrees has anything but bald assertion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights do exist.
> 
> evidence:
> all animals and most plants have the ability and "desire" to protect themselves - self-defense is a natural right. No government gives a lion the right to defend itself against other lions or hyenas invading their territory or against an attack. There is a natural right to defend ourselves and that which we occupy or own. (three rights are covered - the second, fourth and third amendment rights)
> 
> All animals and plants express themselves in some way. We have a natural right to express ourselves. This covers the first amendment.
> 
> As you can see our natural rights are present in all of the natural world - they apply universally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though in the absence of sentience and moral decision, the innate abilities of self-defense and expression cannot be asserted as _rights_.  This is the nexus at which the relativist fails to apprehend the fact that sentience and moral decision are the innate attributes of a specific category of life in nature.  They precede government.  The only abstract aspect of them is the manner in which they are translated from the state of nature into the terms of civil government.
> 
> *This brings us to Quantum's point that abilities are the evidence of rights.  I now trust that this is his point:  he didn't mean ability in the generic sense abused by animal rights activists, for example, but ability strictly in the sense of human attributes.
> 
> I see what Quantum must have been getting at now, and would certainly agree with that.
> 
> I withdraw my criticism, for that is the sense in which natural law formally asserts the matter.
> 
> Quantum?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Society abhors any self expression that defies the consensus. And our government is quite busy censoring it.*
Click to expand...

*

When did that start? I must have missed it.*


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, somehow, declaring that they don't actually does make it so, despite the fact that multiple posters have actually provided evidence that natural rights exist, and not a single poster who disagrees has anything but bald assertion.
Click to expand...


I reject the evidence submitted as errors in human perception and interpretation. What right cannot be taken away from us ?


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> We all saw how well Marx's philosophy worked, yet you are still using him to try to prove that a system that actually outlasted it is an abject failure.
> 
> Do you also believe in alchemy?



#1 You have no clue what Marx's philosophy is except through generations removed propaganda.

#2 You have never read Marx. (I have studied and written on Marx).

#3 If you think Marx's philosophy was ever practiced, you'd be 100% wrong and keep in mind it's essential to know exactly what Marx's philosophy is in order to know if it was ever applied. Otherwise saying it didn't work is utterly incoherent.

#4 History Lesson: When Bolshevism and Leninism in its later forms took power in 1918, that was the absolute termination of any of Marxist thought. The rest was a struggle for power under a command economy, which was the same type of economy we had during WW2 and it had full employment.

#5 Get a clue and only after you have that clue make an assertion. It's a good principle to follow. Assertions based on multiple steps removed from the source is often a bad source; as are governments and powerful institutions that make declarations of anti-communism and anti-marxism it's usually propaganda, not fact.

#6 I wasn't quoting Marx for a reiteration of Marxism. I quoted him because he had a point! I don't believe much of Marx but he has got lots of points accurately and all of his intelligent critics admit this. I can quote you several such admissions. Read the point and make a response based on the point, don't abstract it out by an utter distraction of logical cowardice and completely bogus propaganda.


----------



## Sallow

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  That's only like the 100th time that claim has been made on this thread.  Heard that.  Dealt with that.  Got the T-shirt.
> 
> You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.
> 
> What none of you on this thread have ever done is provide a rational justification for that claim.  There it is again suspended in midair.
> 
> What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?
> 
> Here's an easier one for you:  _how_ does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?  Note:  the question is not _what_ they are, respectively, though one must begin with the _what_, but _how_ one distinguishes the former from the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no argument really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got that right, in the sense that you didn't provide any argument, really, let alone answer the only question that would demonstrate that _*all*_ rights are nothing more than social constructs, assuming your answer is coherently rational and backed by some discernible empirical data--either historical or biological.
> 
> *Once again:  What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Further Proof Regarding the Facts of Natural Law*
> 
> 
> *False.  That's you guys and you guys alone all day long.  You just think that's true because you've never gotten beyond the red herrings of relativism, and you think the strawmen arguments proffered by others on this thread are the actual stuff of natural law. *
> 
> We're _not_ talking about the social constructs of political science:  civil rights or civil liberties.  The latter, by the way, *are* those readily and universally recognized innate rights as translated from nature into the political conventions of civil government.
> 
> How does one discern the difference between the civil liberties predicated on innate rights and the civil rights or privileges of the collective under the rule of law in the state of civil government?
> 
> Gee wiz.  If what you claim were true that would be a monumental task of the inscrutable kind.  But fortunately for you and me, your claim is bunk, so it's a relatively simple matter.
> 
> We are talking about innate rights, hence, those that pertain life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property, not the theoretical delegations or arrangements of the institutional powers of political science relative to the state of civil government.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  You know better.  The inherent, universal traits of humanity are self-evident:  thought, volition and the related material exigencies and aspirations of self-preservation.  We're not vegetables.  We're sentient beings.  Once again, with regard to these elemental facts of human physiology and consciousness, the elementary innate rights of man pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.  They are concrete, not esoteric.  Your claim is risible.  Absurd.  Ridiculous.  Once again, see above.
> 
> You're walking down the street, and someone jumps you out of nowhere and beats on your ass. . . .
> 
> *Every human being on this planet knows* that you have but three alternative courses of action:  fight, flee or submit.  *Every human being on this planet knows* that what is being threatened/violated is (1) life, (2) the fundamentals of human action and/or (3) property.  *Every human being on this planet knows* that the violation of these things is wrong, _because_ *every human being on this planet knows* that the violation of these things constitutes existential transgressions they would not have perpetrated on them.  *Every regime that exists or has ever existed*, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them:  murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.
> 
> These three things and their respective aspects are universally apprehended.
> 
> Say it isn't so again _now_, and know that you're talking like a fool.
> 
> RABBI, G.T., ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?
> 
> Even despotic psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others apprehend this truth as such always justify their atrocities by _first_ declaring some group or another to be something less than human, renegade citizens or non-citizens (the timeless caveats), who may, therefore, be murdered, enslaved or reeducated.  There's _always_ a pretext relative to these three things.
> 
> Totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, or institutions akin to such regimes within societies that are otherwise generally freer have always existed.  All persons under the sway of the former are decidedly less free, but these three categories of rights and their respective aspects obviously persist and strain against the chains that bind the overtly "subversive" expressions of them therein.
> 
> These basic, innate functions of sentient beings have always been known to man, and have been referred to, variously, as the prerogatives of man, the dignities of man or the rights of man, not to be confused with any of the politically abstract accommodations made for them by government, at whatever level, or with any of the additional political privileges afforded by government.  They are centuries old, predating the modern expression of them from the Enlightenment in terms of natural law proper, *and their historical actuality sure as hell predates the retarded, post-modern, relativistic construct that there exists no universally absolute moral principles or innate rights.
> 
> Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.  Bang, bang.*
> 
> Your sloganeering is not a material or ontological assertion, let alone an argument, against *the fact of these things*; you're quibbling over semantics!
> 
> Call them prerogatives, dignities, rights, inherent inclinations, the fundamental exigencies and expressions of sentient beings:  they clearly are not and have never been the stuff of mere social constructs, niceties, accommodations, or the civil rights afforded directly by government.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even coherently state (1) what you're implying and you're utterly oblivious to (2) the inherent contradiction of your claim.
> 
> First, you're implying the same goofy idea as that asserted by *gnarlylove*:  that no rights can be inalienable _because_ all rights, whether they be innate or not, can be infringed.  The term inalienable as it pertains to rights doesn't carry any such connotation and never has.
> 
> They are inalienable _because_, as opposed to abstract political rights, they inherently and benignly adhere to the nature of the creature as incontrovertibly demonstrated in the above and, therefore, the violation of them constitutes a transgression that is subject to being put down by deadly force, legitimately and justly so.  In the state of nature their violation is an act of war, and in the state of civil government their violation is a crime.
> 
> Hence, enslavement and torture in the absence of due provocation are existential transgressions of inalienable rights:  acts of war or crimes.
> 
> And the Founders knew from the beginning that slavery was a peculiar and destabilizing institution, as it has always been throughout history in the face of the imperatives of human nature, and hoped it could be peacefully and incrementally abolished before tensions escalated to an armed civil war.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> *Second, if, according to you, there are no absolutes of any kind, except the absolute that there are no absolutes, and, therefore, according you, the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory and self-negating. . . .  Oh, never mind.*
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> But let's pretend for a moment that your contention does not _absolutely_ violate the laws of logic--the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle--and note the absurdity of a relativist talking about slavery and torture as if these things weren't merely the allocation of human resources and sport.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> The point will fly over the heads of some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Governments are human constructs set up to protect human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  You can't maintain a rationally consistent argument in defense of an absurdity, as you cannot evade the innate and universal imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision, can you?
> 
> They're natural, innate, absolute . . . inescapable.
> 
> Congratulations.   You've finally awoken from your fantasy, for whether you realize or not, you just conceded that the materially innate exigencies and aspirations of humanity, including rights, precede the abstract constructs of civil government.
> 
> But wait a minute!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even that construct doesn't work out all the time.  If right were "natural"? That simply wouldn't be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back to fantasyland.  You just contradicted yourself in the space of four short sentences.
> 
> HEY, RABBI, G.T., ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?  DO YOU GET THE RELEVANCE OF MY PREVIOUS DECONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVISM, WHICH YOU POOH-POOHED, _NOW_?
> 
> The only ones dabbling in abstractions and esoteric claptrap are those going on about social constructs in the face of real-world scenarios and consequences.
> 
> *BTW, as a matter of preempting any more nonsense about my posts being paragraphs of empty rhetoric, let's get something straight: any braying jackass can write slogans parading as arguments.  Thoroughly deconstructing such crap from first principles and examples routinely takes more space.  While the basic facts of the matter before us are self-evident, the reasons they are self-evident in the face of the convoluted machinations of the falsehoods that would obscure them are more complex.*
Click to expand...



I don't need to deconstruct this.

This is an irrational rant.

And in any case..I've made my case.

Rights are something that humanity has made.

Not something that is made by nature.


----------



## dilloduck

TheOldSchool said:


> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights



I secretly suspect that's because there aren't any but some people would very much like to have them. Name me one thing in nature that concerns itself with rights other than a human.

additionally we are still in the process of deciding what the natural state of man is. Wasn't long ago that homosexually was seen as not natural.


----------



## Listening

dilloduck said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.
> 
> *The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution* and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
Click to expand...


Saying they don't exist does not make it any more so.


----------



## dilloduck

Listening said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying they don't exist does not make it any more so.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for an example of an inalienable right---do you have one ?


----------



## Listening

dilloduck said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saying they don't exist does not make it any more so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for an example of an inalienable right---do you have one ?
Click to expand...


I'll give you three.

Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.


----------



## dilloduck

Listening said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying they don't exist does not make it any more so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for an example of an inalienable right---do you have one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll give you three.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.
Click to expand...


I can take away all three----try again


----------



## Listening

dilloduck said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for an example of an inalienable right---do you have one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you three.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can take away all three----try again
Click to expand...


You can try.  But you better bring a big gun.


----------



## dilloduck

Listening said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you three.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can take away all three----try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try.  But you better bring a big gun.
Click to expand...


Oh they will--- governments have lots of them and are trying to control everyone elses


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Of course, *midcan* is wrong as he can be, given the centuries-old understanding of their existence, their nature and their actual substance, but you are just as wrong as he....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sentence you nullified your argument. Understanding is a human event and thus no natural right would exist without the observer and chronicler. No where in nature is there a natural right and as animals that should be clear. If I believe in the Great Pumpkin there is no way you can prove me wrong, just as you hold on to your security blanket.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Indeed, it is a human event, but more to the point, sentience is an innate human attribute.  We understand because that's the essence of what we are, the essence of what we do.  I don't see how that nullifies my argument, and I don't see why I'd have to prove anything to you in order to assert my right to live, to freely exercise my fundamental liberties or to enjoy the fruits of my labor.  I don't see how these basic aspects of the human condition are derived from government or how the innate proclivities, expressions or aspirations thereof disappear should some cabal or another physically oppress me in the state of nature or in the state of civil government. 



> MD sorry I never got to your eloquent post. But this is my precise point. There is no such thing as natural rights. Humans are born, live and die. There are no rights that can be fundamentally and innately attributed to us any more than snakes attribute rights to other snakes. We must first exist AND possess conscious faculties in order to articulate natural rights in a coherent fashion. Only then do they take on meaning; and the meaning ascribed is not absolute. It changes from era to era.



So what you're saying is that rights can only be apprehended or granted by sentient beings, and that rights would not exist in the absence of sentient beings.  I have no argument with that.  But why would a sentient being have to articulate them in order for them to exist?  They either innately exist as a matter of the sentient being's existence or they don't.  What I know is this:  I would not that anyone threaten my life, violate my liberty or steal my property, and would use deadly counterforce in the face of any existential transgression of these things if possible.  Otherwise, in the face of overwhelming force, I'd flee or submit, but only outwardly, not inwardly, to fight another day.  The rest is just semantics.     



> Now the debate about what are natural rights takes on two tasks. A descriptive and prescriptive task. Descriptive is how our biological and innate structures gives rise to moral action. This has only begun to make progress since the 90s, likely having originated with Chomsky in linguistics during the 50s.
> 
> The prescriptive task has been a mostly fluid discussion and has sloshed from one side to the other for millennia. There is a range within most humans behave and this likely refers back to a biological component but is not determined solely by that. Our desire and abilities come into focus and help determine our actual action. This is what we are debating about.



But humans in the state of nature and in the state of civil government have always asserted them under one banner or another, variously, human dignities, human prerogatives, human entitlements or human rights.  And as you suggest, and rightly so, their essence is the morality of self-preservation and empathy.   Humans know the difference between killing a human being in self-defense and murdering a human being, even sociopaths know the difference.  The rest is academic.

BTW, I touch on that here: 



> Uh, currently, the reigning opinion in the epistemological literature, due to recent advances in the neurological sciences, holds that along with a universal baseline of geometric-logistic predilections: humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the human brain. The traditional, Aristotelian blank slate of Empiricism, at least in this respect, is dead.
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 35 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


 


> *The prescription is a question of ethics*, not natural rights. *Natural rights is a way of understanding prescriptive ethics, albeit a useful one. *Nevertheless, it possesses no more inherent qualities than does any other passing thought. To be sure, *I certainly agree to a universal norm and only then does moral action take on a sensible.* That's why you think natural rights are inherent, because they must exist universally in order to carry weight. But don't mistake universal for inherent qualities. I doubt I need to explain them to you...



Semantics.

The essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man thereof are the imperatives of the Golden Rule concerning the inherent, material exigencies and outcomes of the human condition, and the essence of the Golden Rule is universally recognized and adhered to at some level or another by all of mankind--in the state of nature and in the state of civil government.

See:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

While I appreciate the distinction you're making between universal qualities and inherent qualities, and especially your insight regarding the essence of natural law in accordance with the Anglo-American tradition--that's refreshing!--the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision would necessarily be inherently hardwired in order to _be_ universal.  In other words, its interesting that you grasp the fact that the mutual obligations of morality are the essence of natural law in the history of its exegesis, though you hold the latter to be a mere corollary in some sense:  in nature, I don't know of any universal quality in any given category of thing that isn't also inherent to that category of thing.

Besides, the reason that all humans know that it's wrong to murder or to oppress or to steal from others is because they would not have anyone do these things to them.  Hence, everyone knows where their rights end and the rights of others begin.  Even the sociopath/psychopath knows this.  He just doesn't care, as one bereft of moral shame and empathy, until these things are perpetrated on _him_.

I saw your other post as well.

My answer to that. . . .

Two women are trying to do the same thing well within their natural rights.  One is "permitted" to do so.  Why?  Because it's well within her natural rights.  The other is treated like a criminal.  Why?  The only difference between them is that one is in a position to wield the strictly artificial and clearly arbitrary trappings of a renegade bureaucracy, while the other is not.  Everybody knows there's nothing morally reprehensible about what they both wish to do.  The underlying fact remains:  natural rights are _not_ inalienable in the sense that they _cannot_ be violated or suppressed; they're inalienable in the sense that they _may not_ be violated or suppressed without dire consequences, including the use of deadly counterforce.  But perhaps you'll wish to dig deeper into that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for an example of an inalienable right---do you have one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you three.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can take away all three----try again
Click to expand...


Then you'd have to flee or otherwise evade detection.

But natural rights are not inalienable because they _cannot_ be violated or suppressed; they're inalienable because they _may not_ be violated or suppressed without dire consequences, including the use of deadly counterforce.

Your point is a red herring.

See:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=8888817#post8888817


----------



## Listening

Once again, I'll argue that if I take the position that we all have unalienable rights, then I have locked myself into a position where I must restrict government with regards to it's actions.

I then have to address the human conditions through other institutions.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

By the way, *dblack*, when I talked about the quality of minds, I had yours in mind along with those of others, in case that wasn't clear.  But only one or two others consistently make the right distinctions. 

In my posts, make no mistake about it, I'm cognizant of the denotations and connotations of the various terms pertinent to this discussion and the context in which I use them:  _freedoms vs.  liberties_, _civil rights vs. civil liberties_, _fundamental political rights versus additional "privileges,"_ _positive rights vs. negative rights_ and so on; _human dignities_, _human prerogatives_, _innate rights_, _natural rights_, _inalienable rights_ and so on.   

The primary thing I'm hoping you would see from my posts concerning your defense of natural rights it that they are _natural_.  There's a reason natural law is called natural law.  It's ultimately premised on the concrete and absolute imperatives of nature in general and on the state of human nature concerning the realities of natural human interaction.  These things are absolute and universal, and these things are self-evident to those who are paying attention.

Make the concession that they are not absolute and universal, you concede all. You don't seem to appreciate why that's true.  Why do you make that concession about something that would necessarily have to be concrete, universal and absolute in some sense?

It's the relativist, not the absolutist, dabbling in abstractions and esoteric conundrums regarding the order of things.  No one escapes these absolutes, not even the relativist.

Another way of putting the logically indefensible position of the relativist, illustrated in my last post: if there are no absolutes then how can any two ideas be diametrically opposed?  Is the relativist disagreeing with me or not?  Think about that for awhile.

Classic Relativism is Ontological Irrationalism.  The leading classical proponents of it in history have always known that.  Their position is that in spite the fact that the laws of logic and moral decision are seemingly absolute and universal, they have no actuality beyond the confines of human consciousness.

But, objectively speaking, even if that were ultimately true, how does one prove that by making a distinction that makes no difference to us?  The Classic relativist honesty responds by saying that he can't prove it because the universal rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision do not permit two diametrically opposed ideas to be true at the same time, in the same way within the same frame reference.  

The classical relativist believes this to be true about ultimate reality as a matter of dogma in spite of the universally absolute laws of logic and moral decision of human consciousness. 

The typical relativist laymen of the post-modern era doesn't consciously hold his worldview as a matter of dogma.  He thinks he can argue relativism logically, but the universal laws of logic do not provide any means of conciliating diametrically opposed ideas except by the processes of synthesis.  The only consistently valid synthesis is one that removes the fallacious aspects of the seemingly opposed ideas, thereby producing a more comprehensive exegesis of things without contradiction.  Opposing ideas that are entirely contradictory cannot be reconciled.

All the typical relativist laymen of the post-modern era is saying is that his worldview is . . . wait for . . . self-evident, something a classical relativist would never be caught dead saying as (1) he knows that's not true at all in the face of the universal laws of logic, and (2) he knows that utterly negates his contention regarding the ultimate nature of reality despite the imperatives of human consciousness. 

Do you follow?

How can something that defies the universal laws of logic of human consciousness be axiomatic to human consciousness?  No classical relativist is going utter the nonsense that such a thing could be self-evident, because it's obviously not logically self-evident in any way, shape or form to human consciousness.

Guys like Rabbi and G.T. have never consider any of these things or thought any of this through.  They merely spout slogans as if they were arguments, while they regard the absolutist as being stupid because he fails to see that which is "self-evident" . . . but there's no such thing to see!

In any event, both the classical relativist, who understands that his worldview is held as a matter of dogma, not logic, and the post-modern relativist laymen, who unwitting mistakes the sloganeering of his dogma for logic and argument, are fooling themselves.

As Saint Paul puts it:  "They hold the truth in unrighteousness."  

The first principle of natural law is that reality must be absolute beyond human consciousness as well, given the fact that the exigencies and consequences of human conduct and interaction are apparently absolute as a matter of empirical demonstration.  

Self-evident in terms of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision.  

Self-evident in terms of the real-world outcomes of human experience.  

Hence, it is self-evident that there must be an absolute Consciousness that precedes nature: the natural law of God and the God of nature must be observed by government as these facts of reality precede government.  It cannot be the other way around.

This formal political argument from first principles is not originated by, but merely reiterated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:  "We hold these principles to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain [not abstract or esoteric] rights, that among them are the right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness", which is Locke's triadic formulation of the right to be secure in one's life, in one's liberty and in one's private property.  

And Locke's formulation is predicated on the centuries-old exigencies of human nature (the fact of sentient life and its sanctity), action (the fundamental expressions of sentient creatures) and self-preservation (the fundamental assets and aspirations of sentient creatures).  We are sentient creatures of moral decision who can suffer and empathize, not vegetables, and the dichotomic correlate of reward-punishment inherently obtains.  These facts of the human condition obviously precede the social constructs of government.

Ultimately, what are the inalienable natural rights of man?
.
Answer:  the inherent attributes and objectives of what it means to be human in the state of nature, whether they be arbitrarily and artificially suppressed by tyrants in the state of civil government or not!

The relativists on this thread are not arguing over anything of any ontological or epistemological significance; they're quibbling over semantics.  Clearly, these things are inherent, natural, concrete, absolute, universal and, therefore, inalienable in the sense that the may not be violated without provoking the dire consequences of resistance, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.

Human beings are not rocks that can be picked up and thrown around willy-nilly.  What rock ever picked up a club or a gun and put down its oppressor?  Rocks have other abilities or properties in terms of chemistry, but that ain't one of them.  Rocks aren't sentient.

Further, in terms of nature, what does the tyrant have that I don&#8217;t?  Nothing.  What he has, what he has usurped at the expense of others, are the social constructs of government power.  In fact, the relativists on this thread argue as if the abuses of government power were perpetrated by some inanimate object, when in fact tyranny is merely the innate avarice of some sentient beings leverage against the interests of other sentient beings via the trappings of bureaucracy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, somehow, declaring that they don't actually does make it so, despite the fact that multiple posters have actually provided evidence that natural rights exist, and not a single poster who disagrees has anything but bald assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject the evidence submitted as errors in human perception and interpretation. What right cannot be taken away from us ?
Click to expand...


Wrong question.

Which natural right can be granted to me by government, or any other entity? Does the government give me life? Free will? Speech? Until you can show me how my rights come from another source than nature your rejection of the evidence that they actually comes from nature makes as much sense as a Young Earth Creationist rejecting the evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. You might think you are clever, but all you really close minded.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all saw how well Marx's philosophy worked, yet you are still using him to try to prove that a system that actually outlasted it is an abject failure.
> 
> Do you also believe in alchemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 You have no clue what Marx's philosophy is except through generations removed propaganda.
> 
> #2 You have never read Marx. (I have studied and written on Marx).
> 
> #3 If you think Marx's philosophy was ever practiced, you'd be 100% wrong and keep in mind it's essential to know exactly what Marx's philosophy is in order to know if it was ever applied. Otherwise saying it didn't work is utterly incoherent.
> 
> #4 History Lesson: When Bolshevism and Leninism in its later forms took power in 1918, that was the absolute termination of any of Marxist thought. The rest was a struggle for power under a command economy, which was the same type of economy we had during WW2 and it had full employment.
> 
> #5 Get a clue and only after you have that clue make an assertion. It's a good principle to follow. Assertions based on multiple steps removed from the source is often a bad source; as are governments and powerful institutions that make declarations of anti-communism and anti-marxism it's usually propaganda, not fact.
> 
> #6 I wasn't quoting Marx for a reiteration of Marxism. I quoted him because he had a point! I don't believe much of Marx but he has got lots of points accurately and all of his intelligent critics admit this. I can quote you several such admissions. Read the point and make a response based on the point, don't abstract it out by an utter distraction of logical cowardice and completely bogus propaganda.
Click to expand...


You just argued that Marx rejected the concept of free competition, were you lying? If not, your post makes less sense than your use of Marx to somehow prove that capitalism needs to be tightly regulated to actually work.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I secretly suspect that's because there aren't any but some people would very much like to have them. Name me one thing in nature that concerns itself with rights other than a human.
> 
> additionally we are still in the process of deciding what the natural state of man is. Wasn't long ago that homosexually was seen as not natural.
Click to expand...


Why should anyone attempt to answer that question when you already stated that you reject anything that contradicts your opinion? 

Nonetheless, ants concern themselves with the welfare of the hive, so do bees. Some might argue that this rpoves that the rights of the collective overiride the rights of the individual. That, however, would require one to acknowledge that rights do not come from government. Then we have the fact that many animals have a moral code, which is hard to explain if we insist that morality, and rights, come only from human society. 

On the other hand, one can always chose to believe he is right, ignore all evidence to the contrary, and declare oneself the winner by default.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for an example of an inalienable right---do you have one ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you three.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can take away all three----try again
Click to expand...


How are you going to take away the pursuit of happiness?

By the way, unalienable does not mean you cannot kill someone, it means you cannot transfer that right to someone else. Show me a single example in all of the thousands of years of human history, or even the billions of years the universe has existed, of anyone taking the life of one person and giving it to another one. All it will take is one, and you will conclusively prove that everyone who challenged you is an idiot.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.
> 
> *The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution* and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
Click to expand...


False.  And I've written about this already.  The idea of natural rights predates the Magna Carta and the Assize of Clarendon as well.  The formal term from natural law proper is merely the latest historical iteration of it.  It goes all the way back to the dawn of man.  It goes back to Hammurabic Law, for crying out loud.  These innate rights--essentially life, liberty and private property--have been called the human dignities, the human prerogatives, the human entitlements:  that is, natural rights.

And the divine right of kings goes all the way back too under one banner or another.  It is the inalienable _right of revolt_, extrapolated from Judeo-Christianity's ethical system thought relative to the abomination of statist idolatry vs. true religious liberty, that was finally and formally asserted in natural law proper against the supposed divine right of kings _and_ theocracy, by the way:  the assertion that God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights, and, accordingly, no theocratic despot may legitimately declare himself to be the mediator between God and man.   Kings have no absolute, divinely endowed right to rule.  The political anthem that _every man is the king of his own castle_ derives from the right of revolt in the face of despotic monarchies/theocracies.  Hence, also, the separation of Church and State.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> You just argued that Marx rejected the concept of free competition, were you lying? If not, your post makes less sense than your use of Marx to somehow prove that capitalism needs to be tightly regulated to actually work.



I don't know what your reading but I doubt it's the post we're allegedly discussing. Marx was accurately describing the free competition, set to play, will lead to accumulations of capital that consider free competition a threat to further accumulation. There is nothing more to it. The part I quoted was not saying this is good, bad or anything. Marx is describing the historical fact that was true then and has only piled up evidence as it rings true today in quite obvious ways, most recently, Mccutcheon v FEC.

Insorfar as I was "using" Marx, I countered dblack's proposition that all we need is love and free markets (and small/no government). Free markets don't last and thus cannot be the final stage of development that only if we reached life would get as good as it can; they internally corrode freedom as powers use their leverage to receive special treatment or equal treatment as persons (i.e. corporations).


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just argued that Marx rejected the concept of free competition, were you lying? If not, your post makes less sense than your use of Marx to somehow prove that capitalism needs to be tightly regulated to actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what your reading but I doubt it's the post we're allegedly discussing. Marx was accurately describing the free competition, set to play, will lead to accumulations of capital that consider free competition a threat to further accumulation. There is nothing more to it. The part I quoted was not saying this is good, bad or anything. Marx is describing the historical fact that was true then and has only piled up evidence as it rings true today in quite obvious ways, most recently, Mccutcheon v FEC.
> 
> Insorfar as I was "using" Marx, I countered dblack's proposition that all we need is love and free markets (and small/no government). Free markets don't last and thus cannot be the final stage of development that only if we reached life would get as good as it can; they internally corrode freedom as powers use their leverage to receive special treatment or equal treatment as persons (i.e. corporations).
Click to expand...


Yes, he was accurately describing government sanctioned crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Your problem, and his, is that neither of you can admit you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## gnarlylove

M.D. Rawlings said:


> While I appreciate the distinction you're making between universal qualities and inherent qualities, and especially your insight regarding the essence of natural law in accordance with the Anglo-American tradition--that's refreshing!--the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision would necessarily be inherently hardwired in order to _be_ universal.  In other words, its interesting that you grasp the fact that the mutual obligations of morality are the essence of natural law in the history of its exegesis, though you hold the latter to be a mere corollary in some sense:  in nature, I don't know of any universal quality in any given category of thing that isn't also inherent in that category of thing.
> 
> Besides, the reason that all humans know that its wrong to murder or to oppress or to steal from others is because they would not have anyone do these things to them.  Hence, everyone knows where their rights end and the rights of others begin.  Even the sociopath/psychopath knows this.  He just doesn't care, as one who's bereft of moral shame and empathy, until these things are perpetrated on him.



Excellent point. It forces me to clarify my own position in a meaningful way and that rarely happens on here. Many thanks.

My reply is that I'm not saying human beings don't have these hard wired. I've said indeed there is a biological component that pervades all culture. You can call it the golden rule but we don't really know much about this topic; though good work has been done by John Mikhail on this subject.

So I have no trouble saying these rights exist just like flesh does on our face. But they do not exist outside of our species. The point of this code or natural rights being a portion of biology shows that these rights depend on fundamental recognition of each other as the same and that cannot be done easily without a brain, particularly a human brain. It doesn't ensure we act on them but it sure plays a role. Hence, to say lions afford other lions rights is not intelligible because lions do not have such cognitive capacities. Only when the human brain arrives on the scene do we see natural rights taking form.

So these natural rights are universal among the human species and do not exist outside the human species. Thus, if we died, so does natural rights as we present them. I guess this was the gist of my "they aren't intrinsic" bit. I don't know if this contradicts or supports your belief but it seems axiomatic, really, once we understand natural rights for what they are. A highly useful description in our current age, even a "true" description, but one that does not extend beyond the human species or into the metaphysical realm we so often wish to ascribe such rights and "truths."

Many harp on natural rights as the only way to discuss relations between human beings but it's fundamentally skewed, forgoing other important relations, namely our responsibilities if we are to maintain a decent planet and society. I see "rights" being used for ill as often as good. Moreover I hardly consider rights as important to my understanding of ethics and morality because they come from aligning yourself with self-evident and intuitive principles--one need not understand the concept natural rights in order to do this--and the doing is the only important part. Rights are abstractions of action and are thus subject to misconstrual or worse, misapplication. I don't advocate the getting rid of natural rights but we certainly need to expand it to make sense: to include economic rights.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> Yes, he was accurately describing government sanctioned crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Your problem, and his, is that neither of you can admit you don't know what you are talking about.



This isn't about crony capitalism.

Competitive free markets always result in winners and losers. Yes?

Yes.

Eventually the winners accumulate ever greater sums. Yes?

Yes.

This accumulation of capital inevitably views free markets as a problem: it neither favors nor disfavors them. They want it to favor them and so their capital is applied to political power. Make sense?

Yes.

Free markets always lead to this type of influence. Either you don't think there are winners and losers in competitive free markets or I just don't know.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was accurately describing government sanctioned crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Your problem, and his, is that neither of you can admit you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about crony capitalism.
> 
> Competitive free markets always result in winners and losers. Yes?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Eventually the winners accumulate ever greater sums. Yes?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This accumulation of capital inevitably views free markets as a problem: it neither favors nor disfavors them. They want it to favor them and so their capital is applied to political power. Make sense?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Free markets always lead to this type of influence. Either you don't think there are winners and losers in competitive free markets or I just don't know.
Click to expand...


If you want a lesson in economics and why Marx was wrong examine every country that implemented his ideas. If all you want to do is prove you don't know what you are talking about, go talk to someone else.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Marx RESPONDS to dblack:
> the absurdity of considering free competition as being the final development of human liberty...



LOL... can't same I'm interested in engaging here, but the thought of Karl responding to me personally gave me a tickle. I used to have a fair amount of fun going to the underground communist party meetings when I was in high school. Let's hear it for the 'masses'!

Anyway, gnarly, I'm not interested in anyone's ideas about the 'final development' of human anything. "Live and let live" will do us fine.


----------



## Foxfyre

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he was accurately describing government sanctioned crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Your problem, and his, is that neither of you can admit you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about crony capitalism.
> 
> Competitive free markets always result in winners and losers. Yes?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Eventually the winners accumulate ever greater sums. Yes?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> This accumulation of capital inevitably views free markets as a problem: it neither favors nor disfavors them. They want it to favor them and so their capital is applied to political power. Make sense?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Free markets always lead to this type of influence. Either you don't think there are winners and losers in competitive free markets or I just don't know.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.  Free markets do not of themselves create winners and losers IF AND WHEN our unalienable rights are recognized and protected.  The free market allows the free man and/or woman to pursue his/her ambitions, dreams, hopes, wildest imagination.   Those who are wise enough to develop or choose the right product in the right market at the right price will prosper.  Those who do not will not.  But failure in a free market is never the fault or failing of the free market itself, but rather the choices made by those who engage in it.

If we define recognition of unalienable and/or natural rights as non interference with that which requires no participation or contribution by others, a free market within that principle becomes one of the pillar foundations of that principle.  The only role of government should be enforcement of sufficient laws/regulation to prevent one person from violating the unalienable rights of another.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe

Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.


----------



## dcraelin

Quantum Windbag said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect the world to change simply because you believe something that isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.
> 
> By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.
Click to expand...


Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.


----------



## dcraelin

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to believe whatever you want, just don't expect the world to change simply because you believe something that isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So did Locke, but Locke, unlike Hobbes, understood why life was like that in the state of nature.
Click to expand...


oh,...and why is that.......


----------



## dblack

dcraelin said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.
> 
> By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.
Click to expand...


You don't think they could be 'instituted among men' by other means? Or would you simply call any such means a form of 'government'? In any case, I think you're simply noticing the difference between freedoms that are protected and those that aren't.

I keep coming back to this, but it seems most of the argument here is just semantics. One side is _defining_ rights as freedoms protected by government, and then (reasonably) insisting that rights don't exist without some agency protecting them. But that simply ignores the other point of view, that freedoms can, and do, exists even if they aren't nominally protected. 

All of this comes down to the motivation for this debate, namely an argument over the primacy of government. Both sides cling to 'rights' as their goal. But they're failing to recognize that they're not talking about the same thing. Freedom can exist without government. It can even be protected with alternate means. You don't necessarily need a coercive state government. Whether such freedom is called 'rights' or not is mere semantics.


----------



## dcraelin

dblack said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.
> 
> By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think they could be 'instituted among men' by other means? Or would you simply call any such means a form of 'government'? In any case, I think you're simply noticing the difference between freedoms that are protected and those that aren't.
> 
> I keep coming back to this, but it seems most of the argument here is just semantics. One side is _defining_ rights as freedoms protected by government, and then (reasonably) insisting that rights don't exist without some agency protecting them. But that simply ignores the other point of view, that freedoms can, and do, exists even if they aren't nominally protected.
> 
> All of this comes down to the motivation for this debate, namely an argument over the primacy of government. Both sides cling to 'rights' as their goal. But they're failing to recognize that they're not talking about the same thing. Freedom can exist without government. It can even be protected with alternate means. You don't necessarily need a coercive state government. Whether such freedom is called 'rights' or not is mere semantics.
Click to expand...


I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others.  The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks. 

I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.


----------



## Foxfyre

gnarlylove said:


> dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe
> 
> Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.



Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.

Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind.  Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business.  Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages.  And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us.  And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people.  And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe
> 
> Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.
> 
> Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind.  Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business.  Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages.  And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us.  And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people.  And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.
Click to expand...


in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?


----------



## RKMBrown

Listening said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you three.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can take away all three----try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try.  But you better bring a big gun.
Click to expand...


Why bring a gun when you can bring an army of Federal Agents to defend a State's right to take said liberties away on a whim?  See Wacko mass murders.  See Katrina disarming of the citizens to "protect" them from themselves for demonstrations. See Un-Patriot act drone killings of American citizens.

The 14th amendment due process clause allows the states, and by inclusion feds acting on behalf of the states, to take our life, liberty, and happiness away from us by merely making up whatever excuse they want and calling it due process.


----------



## dblack

dcraelin said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think they could be 'instituted among men' by other means? Or would you simply call any such means a form of 'government'? In any case, I think you're simply noticing the difference between freedoms that are protected and those that aren't.
> 
> I keep coming back to this, but it seems most of the argument here is just semantics. One side is _defining_ rights as freedoms protected by government, and then (reasonably) insisting that rights don't exist without some agency protecting them. But that simply ignores the other point of view, that freedoms can, and do, exists even if they aren't nominally protected.
> 
> All of this comes down to the motivation for this debate, namely an argument over the primacy of government. Both sides cling to 'rights' as their goal. But they're failing to recognize that they're not talking about the same thing. Freedom can exist without government. It can even be protected with alternate means. You don't necessarily need a coercive state government. Whether such freedom is called 'rights' or not is mere semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others.  The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.
> 
> I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.
Click to expand...


Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe
> 
> Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.
> 
> Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind.  Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business.  Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages.  And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us.  And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people.  And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?
Click to expand...


LOL.  If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.  

But you're right.   The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.
> 
> Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind.  Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business.  Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages.  And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us.  And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people.  And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights however they choose to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.
> 
> But you're right.   The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.
Click to expand...


Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.


----------



## gnarlylove

Foxfyre said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe
> 
> Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.
Click to expand...


Again, what planet are you talking about? You and dblack are just saying things that sound pleasant to you because you believe them. But in order for beliefs to be rational they must be defensible. Neither of you are participating in defensible argument. Let me explain why because you have no clue what I'm talking about, because neither of you have ever cared to investigate what the rules of logic are and what constitutes a cogent proposition--one that is supported by evidence.

Fox, if you admit human beings garner wealth in free markets, then you must also recognize the fact that humans also will use their wealth for leverage into gaining access to more wealth. It is as human as masturbaiton for a person who finds himself with more than others to use that accumulation to generate even greater accumulation.

Now please consider the real world (which you clearly don't do often in debate). What do persons who have a lot of money do? They use whatever means within law (and outside of technical legality) to gain ever greater sums. How do they do this? Please look at reality! They took Federal Election Commission to the Supreme Court to expand political donations per election cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about !!!!!!!!! A wrench has been thrown into free markets by virtue of wealthy persons (i.e. corporations) have 100% say in politics and the people have none.

That is some kind of upside "liberty" that your espousing, which inevitably leads to this scenario. Defining liberty as natural rights not being infringed upon precisely undermines your whole argument because free markets always end up with the markets favoring the winners who naturally exploit losers in order to make even greater sums. Thus the losers are further cast into loser-hood. Sounds like a great reality to live in, which we do!

So you may start with a free market but you end up with people using their leverages to influence law so that they are increasingly favored, drowning out all other voices. I thought freedom was where people had a say in their own lives. We currently don't. Tell me how you vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs?


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.
> 
> But you're right.   The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.
Click to expand...


But 'relatively', or more precisely 'comparatively', is not really a factor.  America's poor are very rich indeed when compared to most of the world's poor.  And wealth distribution is a problem only when that wealth is finite.

The only issue is whether the system/government/culture does not interfere in any way with each person having the unalienable right to try to achieve his/her full potential.

Bill Gates was in the right place in the right time and possessed the right instincts to achieve a level of wealth that most of us can only imagine.  But his wealth took nothing away from anybody else and in fact his success has provided millions of good paying jobs and business opportunities for others.  It did not prevent Steve Jobs from also becoming fantastically wealthy, nor can it be argued that Jobs did not also benefit from Gates' success and vice versa.  And certainly neither of them cost me a dime or prevented me from achieving my own level of success that, though significantly less than theirs, was almost certainly enhanced because of the industries and opportunities that have spun off from Microsoft and Apple.

It is a near certainty that neither Gates or Jobs knows that AlbqOwl exists and neither has given me a single thought.  But because they had the right and ability to achieve amazing success, they nevertheless played a part in my own in ways that almost certainly never occurred to either of them.

They took nothing away from anybody, but rather created industries that have in one way or another enriched us all.

That is how a free market works.  And how recognition of and security of unalienable (natural) rights creates much more successful societies overall than any other system.


----------



## gnarlylove

dblack said:


> in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?



You are accusing socialists of excessive pride in claiming some people are rich and others are not?

What's more is you claim that ownership does not imply reduced availability. So if Monsanto owns 10% of the world, does that mean there is still 100% available? No. It means the rest of the inhabitant must do with 90%. What if 1% of the world owns 40% of its wealth? What does that leave for 99% of people? You're right, 60%. And believe it or not, 40% of the world really is owned by 1%. World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers | Money | The Guardian

I know you don't take reality serious but this planet is finite. Corporations can only claim a finite amount. So if corporations own half the world, they are winners. We both agree. Does that mean they are benefiting the rest? Not necessarily. *People do not always act in the interests of other people. And indeed those in power often act in their own interests to the dismay of other groups. Right?* How do you think this dynamic of 1% owning 40% influences the rest of the inhabitants? Take a look around, figuratively. There is abjection among the world's poor. Why is that? That is precisely because corporations have claimed ownership of lands and drove subsistence farmers off in order to make cash crops. How does this benefit people who were living on the land and now are forced into cities or hillsides?

Did those drive from their land in Haiti or Cuba or Malaysia (I could go on and on) people loose? Now they are tied into depending on markets whereas they once were completely free human beings without any needs of the global market.

*Winners on a finite world implies losers. Just like if there are 100 jelly beans and I take 90, does that leave you with 100 also? 
*
On "planet-dblack" the world is infinite and infinite growth is possible. Thus we can have winners without losers. And in your narrow and obviously false premise, you know that our planet is finite. But you refuse to admit that* if you take away from the totality, you no longer have access to the totality. The totality has shrunk. Shrinking is not different from loosing. The more elites have, the less that can be distributed among people. I'm not saying corporations and the rich don't give back or distribute, but the only way profit exists is they keep more than they distribute. Thus, the people loose.*


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Let me explain why because you have no clue what I'm talking about, because neither of you have ever cared to investigate what the rules of logic are and what constitutes a cogent proposition--one that is supported by evidence.



There's rules!?!?!  Shit, no wonder I'm so confused. Please do 'splain it.



> Fox, if you admit human beings garner wealth in free markets, then you must also recognize the fact that humans also will use their wealth for leverage into gaining access to more wealth. It is as human as masturbaiton for a person who finds himself with more than others to use that accumulation to generate even greater accumulation.
> 
> Now please consider the real world (which you clearly don't do often in debate). What do persons who have a lot of money do? They use whatever means within law (and outside of technical legality) to gain ever greater sums. How do they do this? Please look at reality! They took Federal Election Commission to the Supreme Court to expand political donations per election cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about !!!!!!!!! A wrench has been thrown into free markets by virtue of wealthy persons (i.e. corporations) have 100% say in politics and the people have none.
> 
> That is some kind of upside "liberty" that your espousing, which inevitably leads to this scenario. Defining liberty as natural rights not being infringed upon precisely undermines your whole argument because free markets always end up with the markets favoring the winners who naturally exploit losers in order to make even greater sums. Thus the losers are further cast into loser-hood. Sounds like a great reality to live in, which we do!
> 
> So you may start with a free market but you end up with people using their leverages to influence law so that they are increasingly favored, drowning out all other voices. I thought freedom was where people had a say in their own lives. We currently don't. Tell me how you vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs?



Huh... Still wondering, how does one person being rich, necessitate another being poor? On what are you basis the 'zero-sum' assumption?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> You are accusing socialists of excessive pride in claiming some people are rich and others are not?



Nope. I'm accusing them of excessive stupidity in claiming that a person getting richer makers other people poorer.



> I know you don't take reality serious ...



Well, then why do you bother talking to me? Are you in the habit of wasting time with delusional people?


----------



## gnarlylove

Your replies consist of "poop" "dumb" excessive stupidity" "irrelevant" all the while offering no defense of your negations or propositions. It's fresh to hear you consider yourself delusional because on the majority of my sincere attempts to dialogue have been met with quite frankly delusional replies. Your realm of understanding does not consist of a well rounded outlook of reality, but of an objectified or personified understanding through the various authors and lecturers you've given attention (and clearly shut others out).

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I gather your experience does not seem diverse. A diversity of experience opens one up to strange ideas, really I'm just saying you appear less "open to experience" based on the model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience. I'm sorry you do not seem interested in participating in rational dialogue and my repeated failed attempts arise from the woeful desire and of hope something has to click with you and cause you to confront what I'm saying within defensible reasoning or concrete evidence. Instead, it never does and your replies offer is a game to name the opposition without proffering substance or evidence.

Either reply to the finite argument above or it seems you refuse to confront the arguments on a rational level yet you still claim to be rational, I presume.

And I don't take your question as serious about the rules of thought. If you really want to know I will walk you though them, exercise for us both.


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> your replies consist of "poop" "dumb" excessive stupidity" "irrelevant" all the while offering no defense of your negations or propositions. It's fresh to hear you consider yourself delusional because on the majority of my sincere attempts to dialogue have been met with quite frankly delusional replies. Your realm of understanding does not consist of reality, but of an objectified or personified understanding through the various authors and lecturers you've given attention. I'm sorry you cannot participate in rational dialogue and my repeated failed attempts arise from the woeful desire and of hope something has to click and you confront what i'm saying within defensible reasoning or concrete evidence. Instead, it never does and all your replies offer is a game to name the opposition without proffering substance.
> 
> Either reply to the finite argument above or it seems you refuse to confront the arguments on a rational level yet you still claim to be rational, i presume.
> 
> And i don't take your question as serious about the rules of thought. If you really want to know i will walk you though them, exercise for us both.



ok


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.
> 
> But you're right.   The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But 'relatively', or more precisely 'comparatively', is not really a factor.  America's poor are very rich indeed when compared to most of the world's poor.  And wealth distribution is a problem only when that wealth is finite.
> 
> The only issue is whether the system/government/culture does not interfere in any way with each person having the unalienable right to try to achieve his/her full potential.
> 
> Bill Gates was in the right place in the right time and possessed the right instincts to achieve a level of wealth that most of us can only imagine.  But his wealth took nothing away from anybody else and in fact his success has provided millions of good paying jobs and business opportunities for others.  It did not prevent Steve Jobs from also becoming fantastically wealthy, nor can it be argued that Jobs did not also benefit from Gates' success and vice versa.  And certainly neither of them cost me a dime or prevented me from achieving my own level of success that, though significantly less than theirs, was almost certainly enhanced because of the industries and opportunities that have spun off from Microsoft and Apple.
> 
> It is a near certainty that neither Gates or Jobs knows that AlbqOwl exists and neither has given me a single thought.  But because they had the right and ability to achieve amazing success, they nevertheless played a part in my own in ways that almost certainly never occurred to either of them.
> 
> They took nothing away from anybody, but rather created industries that have in one way or another enriched us all.
> 
> That is how a free market works.  And how recognition of and security of unalienable (natural) rights creates much more successful societies overall than any other system.
Click to expand...


Uhmmm.... Gates was given a monopoly of the PC market by IBM for IBM PCs to convince govco to not break IBM up like they had just broken up ma bell (IBM had 95% of the computing market at the time).  Gates then leveraged that monopoly to force the IBM PC manufacturers to include the cost of a windows license with every PC whether their customers wanted windows or not.  This monopoly of the operating system market for IBM PC compatibles went on for many years and Microsoft was never punished for it, effectively killing all the for fee OS competitors at the time (even IBM's OS/2) and making Microsoft the dominant player in OSes for decades to come.

Gates was also allowed to use their OS monopoly derived money to buy up all of the word processing, presentation, spreadsheet competition... and bundle it all together thus creating the monopoly on the most commonly used types of office applications as well.

So, no that's not how a free market works.


----------



## gnarlylove

You have plenty of opportunities to demonstrate your efforts to engage in rational debate and yet I don't seem to get to experience that side of you. Perhaps you think because I disagree I leave no room for coming to realize what I believe is false and thus see no point in debating me. On the contrary, I am readily convinced of my folly through cogent assessment and reasoning. It is, afterall, the only chance we have for common ground and on that ground I stand praying you join me by deconstructing my argument about a finite planet. Perhaps I am guilty of excessive stupidity but without offering any reason, why should I believe your assertion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dcraelin said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So You dont think Carlin agreed with Jefferson...perhaps not,.... I'm not sure I do entirely...but I do agree with him in the picture below....and I agree with Hobbes that life without government would be nasty brutish and short .
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...ture5998-jefferson-on-mtrushmore-w-quotes.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.
> 
> By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.
Click to expand...


Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  If our richer neighbors disappeared, we wouldn't have such neat things we can borrow when we need them.
> 
> But you're right.   The accumulation of wealth in a free market in which natural rights are protected is not the reason some are less wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.
Click to expand...


That relativity thing is what trips up people. The fact is that wealth is increasing generally. The middle class is not shrinking because the rich are making them poorer, it is shrinking because people are getting richer. Sure, some people are getting richer faster than others, but that doesn't change the fact that I am getting richer too.


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are*
> 
> *G.T. et. al.*, the immediate origin of *natural* rights is, uh, you know, _*nature*_, and the God of nature is the ultimate origin.
> 
> While one need not appeal to God to demonstrate their actuality and inviolability, as I have already shown, *Quantum*, one must never forget the fact of their ultimate origin.  One does not prove what innate rights are with syllogisms predicated on _ability_ or _free will_.  Natural rights are not synonymous to _ability_ and they are not predicated on _ability_.  The matter is not abstract in the sense that the know-nothings would have it, but it's not that simple either.  The origin and the essence of the natural rights of man have been established for centuries.  The concrete concerns on which they are immediately predicated and their identity have been established for centuries.
> 
> Disregard the implications regarding the ultimate origin of natural rights, you will end up making indefensible arguments regarding their nature and identity.
> 
> Please, stop trying to reinvent the wheel.  It only confuses matters.
> 
> Natural rights are immediately predicated on the same real-world, dichotomic dynamics that divulge their exact identity:  *light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions and its correlate initial force-defensive force.*
> 
> Period.  End of discussion.  They are *real-world* concerns.  They are *natural*.  They are *concrete*.  They are *material*.  They are *absolute*.  Hence, they are identified and demonstrated accordingly.  They are not identified and demonstrated with syllogisms predicated on secondary concerns.
> 
> I have the ability to wiggle my toes.  So what?
> 
> I could lose that ability should some paralysis strike me.  The point here is that _when_ one argues natural rights on the basis of innate abilities, *one fallaciously implies that they are subject to negation by the whims of other agents.*  They are not inalienable in the sense that they *cannot (ability)* be suppressed or violated; they are inalienable in the sense that they *may not (consent)* be suppressed or violated without dire consequences, which may include the use deadly force.
> 
> In the absence of violation, we have peace; in the presence of violation, war.
> 
> In other words, they are identified and demonstrated on the basis of the *material* impact that human actions have on the *material* concerns of human life, liberty and property.  Period.
> 
> So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable _because_ they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of _ability_.
> 
> RABBI, G.T. ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?
> 
> DO YOU GET THE POINT OF THE FOLLOWING _NOW_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that the mutual obligations of morality are not pertinent to understanding the essence of natural rights, particularly as they are carried over from the state of nature and expressed in the state of civil government, is false and irrational. Obviously, the understanding of this goes to their parameters, RABBI, *one of the several things that accordingly you supposedly cannot be determined by sentient beings--for crying out loud!*  And that is self-evident too, given the necessities of the government's regulatory and judicial authority regarding the legitimate extent of civil liberties in the face of conflicting interests.
> 
> How about you stop wasting our time with your obviously ill-considered and fallacious claims as you think to preemptively negate the manifestly essential premises of natural law.
> 
> Your ignorance and closed-minded, intellectual bigotry are not the stuff of real arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________
> 
> Edit:  So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable _because_ they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of _ability_.
Click to expand...


Nothing you said refutes the point that natural rights only exist as ideas.  They do not exist as facts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe
> 
> Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what planet are you talking about? You and dblack are just saying things that sound pleasant to you because you believe them. But in order for beliefs to be rational they must be defensible. Neither of you are participating in defensible argument. Let me explain why because you have no clue what I'm talking about, because neither of you have ever cared to investigate what the rules of logic are and what constitutes a cogent proposition--one that is supported by evidence.
Click to expand...


How, exactly, can rich people secure access to their money in a completely free market? Are they somehow apply to rig a market that has no strings in such a way that only they can get rich, or do they need to create a way to rig the market by taking away the ability of other people to compete? 

In other words, they need something external to the market to control it, that something is called government. In other words, the very thing Marx, and all the idiots who are blinded by ideology,  think will fix the problem is actually creating the problem.



gnarlylove said:


> Fox, if you admit human beings garner wealth in free markets, then you must also recognize the fact that humans also will use their wealth for leverage into gaining access to more wealth. It is as human as masturbaiton for a person who finds himself with more than others to use that accumulation to generate even greater accumulation.



Some will, but the vast majority won't. That is because, unlike Marx, we now have mathematical proof that cooperation produces better results than trying to come out the winner. In other wrods, you can actually get richer by helping people than trying to corner the market.

Funny thing, if you bother to look at history you will see that every time someone tried to corner the market they ended up losing. In other words, the math won out even before we knew about the math.



gnarlylove said:


> Now please consider the real world (which you clearly don't do often in debate). What do persons who have a lot of money do? They use whatever means within law (and outside of technical legality) to gain ever greater sums. How do they do this? Please look at reality! They took Federal Election Commission to the Supreme Court to expand political donations per election cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about !!!!!!!!! A wrench has been thrown into free markets by virtue of wealthy persons (i.e. corporations) have 100% say in politics and the people have none.



Explain the Kochs. They actually spend a great deal of their money striving to make it harder for them to hog the wealth, and get demonized by the Democrats for their tactics. 

Wait, that wasn't the real world you meant, was it?



gnarlylove said:


> That is some kind of upside "liberty" that your espousing, which inevitably leads to this scenario. Defining liberty as natural rights not being infringed upon precisely undermines your whole argument because free markets always end up with the markets favoring the winners who naturally exploit losers in order to make even greater sums. Thus the losers are further cast into loser-hood. Sounds like a great reality to live in, which we do!



Let me get this straight, the real world fact that we don't have a free market, and that government regulations and control of the market makes people less free, is somehow proof that free markets are bad.

Where have I heard that argument before? That's right, I hear it every time some guy that thinks Marx is a genius pops into a discussion about economics.



gnarlylove said:


> So you may start with a free market but you end up with people using their leverages to influence law so that they are increasingly favored, drowning out all other voices. I thought freedom was where people had a say in their own lives. We currently don't. Tell me how you vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs?



We have never started with a free market, if we had we wouldn't have ended up with the problem you insist we have because we have free markets.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are accusing socialists of excessive pride in claiming some people are rich and others are not?
> 
> What's more is you claim that ownership does not imply reduced availability. So if Monsanto owns 10% of the world, does that mean there is still 100% available? No. It means the rest of the inhabitant must do with 90%. What if 1% of the world owns 40% of its wealth? What does that leave for 99% of people? You're right, 60%. And believe it or not, 40% of the world really is owned by 1%. World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers | Money | The Guardian
> 
> I know you don't take reality serious but this planet is finite. Corporations can only claim a finite amount. So if corporations own half the world, they are winners. We both agree. Does that mean they are benefiting the rest? Not necessarily. *People do not always act in the interests of other people. And indeed those in power often act in their own interests to the dismay of other groups. Right?* How do you think this dynamic of 1% owning 40% influences the rest of the inhabitants? Take a look around, figuratively. There is abjection among the world's poor. Why is that? That is precisely because corporations have claimed ownership of lands and drove subsistence farmers off in order to make cash crops. How does this benefit people who were living on the land and now are forced into cities or hillsides?
> 
> Did those drive from their land in Haiti or Cuba or Malaysia (I could go on and on) people loose? Now they are tied into depending on markets whereas they once were completely free human beings without any needs of the global market.
> 
> *Winners on a finite world implies losers. Just like if there are 100 jelly beans and I take 90, does that leave you with 100 also?
> *
> On "planet-dblack" the world is infinite and infinite growth is possible. Thus we can have winners without losers. And in your narrow and obviously false premise, you know that our planet is finite. But you refuse to admit that* if you take away from the totality, you no longer have access to the totality. The totality has shrunk. Shrinking is not different from loosing. The more elites have, the less that can be distributed among people. I'm not saying corporations and the rich don't give back or distribute, but the only way profit exists is they keep more than they distribute. Thus, the people loose.*
Click to expand...


On question, what makes you think wealth is finite?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Your replies consist of "poop" "dumb" excessive stupidity" "irrelevant" all the while offering no defense of your negations or propositions. It's fresh to hear you consider yourself delusional because on the majority of my sincere attempts to dialogue have been met with quite frankly delusional replies. Your realm of understanding does not consist of a well rounded outlook of reality, but of an objectified or personified understanding through the various authors and lecturers you've given attention (and clearly shut others out).
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I gather your experience does not seem diverse. A diversity of experience opens one up to strange ideas, really I'm just saying you appear less "open to experience" based on the model: Openness to experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'm sorry you do not seem interested in participating in rational dialogue and my repeated failed attempts arise from the woeful desire and of hope something has to click with you and cause you to confront what I'm saying within defensible reasoning or concrete evidence. Instead, it never does and your replies offer is a game to name the opposition without proffering substance or evidence.
> 
> Either reply to the finite argument above or it seems you refuse to confront the arguments on a rational level yet you still claim to be rational, I presume.
> 
> And I don't take your question as serious about the rules of thought. If you really want to know I will walk you though them, exercise for us both.



That was funny.

Tell me something how does the fact that you were spoon fed an ideology lead to diversity of experience?


----------



## NYcarbineer

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Try to refute my posts in the above.
> 
> Or more to the point, deal with this everyday reality, the one I will share with *Sallow* again momentarily. . . .
> 
> *Tell that to the man with the business end of loaded gun pointed at your head should you be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and see how far your talk about his right to stop you is not real prior to the abstractions of social constructs.
> 
> Bang, bang.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
Click to expand...


Ugh.  What are you trying to say?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not to quibble, but some people getting 'more wealthy' does make others 'less wealthy' relatively. I'm just saying that being 'less wealthy' than someone else is not the same thing as being 'poorer' than you'd have been otherwise, which is how the socialists usually want to frame it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But 'relatively', or more precisely 'comparatively', is not really a factor.  America's poor are very rich indeed when compared to most of the world's poor.  And wealth distribution is a problem only when that wealth is finite.
> 
> The only issue is whether the system/government/culture does not interfere in any way with each person having the unalienable right to try to achieve his/her full potential.
> 
> Bill Gates was in the right place in the right time and possessed the right instincts to achieve a level of wealth that most of us can only imagine.  But his wealth took nothing away from anybody else and in fact his success has provided millions of good paying jobs and business opportunities for others.  It did not prevent Steve Jobs from also becoming fantastically wealthy, nor can it be argued that Jobs did not also benefit from Gates' success and vice versa.  And certainly neither of them cost me a dime or prevented me from achieving my own level of success that, though significantly less than theirs, was almost certainly enhanced because of the industries and opportunities that have spun off from Microsoft and Apple.
> 
> It is a near certainty that neither Gates or Jobs knows that AlbqOwl exists and neither has given me a single thought.  But because they had the right and ability to achieve amazing success, they nevertheless played a part in my own in ways that almost certainly never occurred to either of them.
> 
> They took nothing away from anybody, but rather created industries that have in one way or another enriched us all.
> 
> That is how a free market works.  And how recognition of and security of unalienable (natural) rights creates much more successful societies overall than any other system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhmmm.... Gates was given a monopoly of the PC market by IBM for IBM PCs to convince govco to not break IBM up like they had just broken up ma bell (IBM had 95% of the computing market at the time).  Gates then leveraged that monopoly to force the IBM PC manufacturers to include the cost of a windows license with every PC whether their customers wanted windows or not.  This monopoly of the operating system market for IBM PC compatibles went on for many years and Microsoft was never punished for it, effectively killing all the for fee OS competitors at the time (even IBM's OS/2) and making Microsoft the dominant player in OSes for decades to come.
> 
> Gates was also allowed to use their OS monopoly derived money to buy up all of the word processing, presentation, spreadsheet competition... and bundle it all together thus creating the monopoly on the most commonly used types of office applications as well.
> 
> So, no that's not how a free market works.
Click to expand...


Funny, I know plenty of people that bought PCs without paying for Windows. 

By the way, IBM never had 90% of the market. Also, they licensed MS-DOS from Jobs, not the other way around. Jobs kept the rights and sold it to other companies at the same time. The reason it took so much of the market was it was built to run on Intel chips.


----------



## dblack

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> actions are real---rights are invented
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try again. This whole thread is just stupid equivocation. Civil rights, those freedoms protected by government, are indeed "invented", in the sense that they are designated by the state. But the inalienable freedoms, those we are empowered to exercise as an innate property of volition and consciousness, exist whether they are protected or not. It's just a matter of how you're defining "rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugh.  What are you trying to say?
Click to expand...


Nuthin. n/m


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But 'relatively', or more precisely 'comparatively', is not really a factor.  America's poor are very rich indeed when compared to most of the world's poor.  And wealth distribution is a problem only when that wealth is finite.
> 
> The only issue is whether the system/government/culture does not interfere in any way with each person having the unalienable right to try to achieve his/her full potential.
> 
> Bill Gates was in the right place in the right time and possessed the right instincts to achieve a level of wealth that most of us can only imagine.  But his wealth took nothing away from anybody else and in fact his success has provided millions of good paying jobs and business opportunities for others.  It did not prevent Steve Jobs from also becoming fantastically wealthy, nor can it be argued that Jobs did not also benefit from Gates' success and vice versa.  And certainly neither of them cost me a dime or prevented me from achieving my own level of success that, though significantly less than theirs, was almost certainly enhanced because of the industries and opportunities that have spun off from Microsoft and Apple.
> 
> It is a near certainty that neither Gates or Jobs knows that AlbqOwl exists and neither has given me a single thought.  But because they had the right and ability to achieve amazing success, they nevertheless played a part in my own in ways that almost certainly never occurred to either of them.
> 
> They took nothing away from anybody, but rather created industries that have in one way or another enriched us all.
> 
> That is how a free market works.  And how recognition of and security of unalienable (natural) rights creates much more successful societies overall than any other system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmmm.... Gates was given a monopoly of the PC market by IBM for IBM PCs to convince govco to not break IBM up like they had just broken up ma bell (IBM had 95% of the computing market at the time).  Gates then leveraged that monopoly to force the IBM PC manufacturers to include the cost of a windows license with every PC whether their customers wanted windows or not.  This monopoly of the operating system market for IBM PC compatibles went on for many years and Microsoft was never punished for it, effectively killing all the for fee OS competitors at the time (even IBM's OS/2) and making Microsoft the dominant player in OSes for decades to come.
> 
> Gates was also allowed to use their OS monopoly derived money to buy up all of the word processing, presentation, spreadsheet competition... and bundle it all together thus creating the monopoly on the most commonly used types of office applications as well.
> 
> So, no that's not how a free market works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I know plenty of people that bought PCs without paying for Windows.
> 
> By the way, IBM never had 90% of the market. Also, they licensed MS-DOS from Jobs, not the other way around. Jobs kept the rights and sold it to other companies at the same time. The reason it took so much of the market was it was built to run on Intel chips.
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe it was 81% not 90%.

You off your meds today?  Jobs worked for Apple not Microsoft.  

IBM paid for MS-DOS, IBM did all the testing, IBM re-wrote it for Billy.  Anyways I'm not talking about MS-DOS, nimrod.  I'm talking about Windows, duh.

Here's a rough primer on the issue.
Bundling of Microsoft Windows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dcraelin

dblack said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think they could be 'instituted among men' by other means? Or would you simply call any such means a form of 'government'? In any case, I think you're simply noticing the difference between freedoms that are protected and those that aren't.
> I keep coming back to this, but it seems most of the argument here is just semantics. One side is _defining_ rights as freedoms protected by government, and then (reasonably) insisting that rights don't exist without some agency protecting them. But that simply ignores the other point of view, that freedoms can, and do, exists even if they aren't nominally protected.
> All of this comes down to the motivation for this debate, namely an argument over the primacy of government. Both sides cling to 'rights' as their goal. But they're failing to recognize that they're not talking about the same thing. Freedom can exist without government. It can even be protected with alternate means. You don't necessarily need a coercive state government. Whether such freedom is called 'rights' or not is mere semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others.  The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.
> I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?
Click to expand...

It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.  




Quantum Windbag said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know what Carlin believed, I just can see that his actions and his words lead to a different conclusion.
> By the way, it always amuses me when I meet a person that thinks quoting other people is actually debating. Debating is defending a position through argument, not quoting. If you read back through the thread you will see that, with one notable exception, you are the only person that thinks quoting other people is debating. Come back when you have enough confidence in your beliefs to actually defend them yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?
Click to expand...


They are ideas made into reality.


----------



## beagle9

Foxfyre said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe
> 
> Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.
> 
> Under liberty--i.e. a society in which natural rights are recognized and not infringed--the free market is the finest system for commerce that humankind ever devised because it works without conscious effort or management of any kind.  Those who are inclined to do so are free to go into business.  Those who are not cut out for management or ill suited to operate businesses are free to work for wages.  And we all are free to buy what we want from whomever is willing to sell it to us.  And the only restrictions are those that the society chooses for themselves for whatever they agree on as the common good.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution was designed to allow that kind of liberty--not rights dictated to the people by some monarch or pope or other totalitarian government, but rather the people dictating to the government what powers it will have, such powers to include securing the rights of the people.  And then the people would be alone to govern themselves and exercise their natural rights *however they choose to do so*.
Click to expand...


This is where it gets dicey, and it has gotten dicey over the years. 

I guess it all depends on who you ask or who it is that was found on the recieving end of certain things that were considered rights by others, but were then later found to be self made "rules" in which were created in a bubble instead. 

Now I believe in natural born rights that human beings possess upon being born or before birth as a living and growing life within the womb in which has a *right *to therefore live, and the mother should protect this right always, and not instead abuse it.  I believe in rules that govern and protect the rights of those who gather together for good, and therefore they would all unite and agree upon these things in which are self evident by the known effects of these things in knowledge of, and in view of once they are applied before all to see, and as well of course to give witness too. It is to be written down in record there of, and it is therefore a guideline in which serves later to make up a nation that all should prosper from and within. It should foster the means to live free within such a nation, and it should also foster happiness and liberty within such a nation. 

It is that these things should bring forth great results because they are good, and not because they are bad. Now a society turning bad will confuse these things, because it is their intent to confuse for selfish purposes, and that is because they are bad when assuming this role within society.

The devil himself is the author of confusion, and it is that man should beware of this fact always.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> On question, what makes you think wealth is finite?



What is wealth?

Wealth is surplus value.

How is surplus value created?

Not from thin air but from productive labor.

Productive labor has a finite system with which to work (earth).

Therefore, surplus value is finite or *real wealth* is finite.

If you think wealth is printed money and credit, try eating printed money or your credit card when there's no planet on which to do productive labor. You'll find that money has no value. No body denies this, our currency is known as fiat--without basis.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhmmm.... Gates was given a monopoly of the PC market by IBM for IBM PCs to convince govco to not break IBM up like they had just broken up ma bell (IBM had 95% of the computing market at the time).  Gates then leveraged that monopoly to force the IBM PC manufacturers to include the cost of a windows license with every PC whether their customers wanted windows or not.  This monopoly of the operating system market for IBM PC compatibles went on for many years and Microsoft was never punished for it, effectively killing all the for fee OS competitors at the time (even IBM's OS/2) and making Microsoft the dominant player in OSes for decades to come.
> 
> Gates was also allowed to use their OS monopoly derived money to buy up all of the word processing, presentation, spreadsheet competition... and bundle it all together thus creating the monopoly on the most commonly used types of office applications as well.
> 
> So, no that's not how a free market works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I know plenty of people that bought PCs without paying for Windows.
> 
> By the way, IBM never had 90% of the market. Also, they licensed MS-DOS from Jobs, not the other way around. Jobs kept the rights and sold it to other companies at the same time. The reason it took so much of the market was it was built to run on Intel chips.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, maybe it was 81% not 90%.
> 
> You off your meds today?  Jobs worked for Apple not Microsoft.
> 
> IBM paid for MS-DOS, IBM did all the testing, IBM re-wrote it for Billy.  Anyways I'm not talking about MS-DOS, nimrod.  I'm talking about Windows, duh.
> 
> Here's a rough primer on the issue.
> Bundling of Microsoft Windows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Funny how IBM didn't build Windows either, but don't let facts destroy your narrative.

PC clones had a fairly large percentage of the market at one time, but IBM never even got up to 50%.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dcraelin said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others.  The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.
> I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are ideas made into reality.
Click to expand...


Ideas made into reality. Funny, that sounds like a description of airplanes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> On question, what makes you think wealth is finite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wealth?
> 
> Wealth is surplus value.
> 
> How is surplus value created?
> 
> Not from thin air but from productive labor.
> 
> Productive labor has a finite system with which to work (earth).
> 
> Therefore, surplus value is finite or *real wealth* is finite.
> 
> If you think wealth is printed money and credit, try eating printed money or your credit card when there's no planet on which to do productive labor. You'll find that money has no value. No body denies this, our currency is known as fiat--without basis.
Click to expand...


Which explains why GDP goes up faster than productivity.

Wait, it doesn't.


----------



## gnarlylove

That's not even a reply. GDP does not exist without production. We cannot produce an infinite amount of stuff. Take the 6th grade math question on your homework: the earth has the materials to make 600,000 tons of concrete. If we assemble those materials and pave a road using 600,000 tons worth of concrete, does the Earth gain 600,000 tons or does it stay the same? The correct answer is the earth remains the same weight.

It is the same. You cannot create useful value or products without production. Production can only operate within our planet. Are you proposing wealth exists outside our finite planet? Maybe you think the earth is flat and extends infinitely. News flash: it's a finite planet and under no condition can infinite wealth be generated from a finite system. Do you really think you can count to infinity starting with finite numbers?


----------



## dilloduck

gnarlylove said:


> That's not even a reply. GDP does not exist without production. We cannot produce an infinite amount of stuff. Take the 6th grade math question on your homework: the earth has the materials to make 600,000 tons of concrete. If we assemble those materials and pave a road using 600,000 tons worth of concrete, does the Earth gain 600,000 tons or does it stay the same? The correct answer is the earth remains the same weight.
> 
> It is the same. You cannot create useful value or products without production. Production can only operate within our planet. Are you proposing wealth exists outside our finite planet? Maybe you think the earth is flat and extends infinitely. News flash: it's a finite planet and under no condition can infinite wealth be generated from a finite system. Do you really think you can count to infinity starting with finite numbers?



Hold everything...we're going to mine the riches of the moon and bring them back here-----to infinity and beyond !


----------



## gnarlylove

dilloduck said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even a reply. GDP does not exist without production. We cannot produce an infinite amount of stuff. Take the 6th grade math question on your homework: the earth has the materials to make 600,000 tons of concrete. If we assemble those materials and pave a road using 600,000 tons worth of concrete, does the Earth gain 600,000 tons or does it stay the same? The correct answer is the earth remains the same weight.
> 
> It is the same. You cannot create useful value or products without production. Production can only operate within our planet. Are you proposing wealth exists outside our finite planet? Maybe you think the earth is flat and extends infinitely. News flash: it's a finite planet and under no condition can infinite wealth be generated from a finite system. Do you really think you can count to infinity starting with finite numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold everything...we're going to mine the riches of the moon and bring them back here-----to infinity and beyond !
Click to expand...


You read my mind! Good olde Newt Gingrich has solved this problem and we're on board--to the moon! To Andromeda Galaxy and beyond!


----------



## dilloduck

gnarlylove said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not even a reply. GDP does not exist without production. We cannot produce an infinite amount of stuff. Take the 6th grade math question on your homework: the earth has the materials to make 600,000 tons of concrete. If we assemble those materials and pave a road using 600,000 tons worth of concrete, does the Earth gain 600,000 tons or does it stay the same? The correct answer is the earth remains the same weight.
> 
> It is the same. You cannot create useful value or products without production. Production can only operate within our planet. Are you proposing wealth exists outside our finite planet? Maybe you think the earth is flat and extends infinitely. News flash: it's a finite planet and under no condition can infinite wealth be generated from a finite system. Do you really think you can count to infinity starting with finite numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold everything...we're going to mine the riches of the moon and bring them back here-----to infinity and beyond !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read my mind! Good olde Newt Gingrich has solved this problem and we're on board--to the moon! To Andromeda Galaxy and beyond!
Click to expand...


It's our natural right to take the whole universe ain't it ?


----------



## gnarlylove

As Americans it's our inalienable right to own the world, space, and the whole damn enchilada. It means we can pollute until there is no planet left and still think it's our right to annihilate ourselves.

Thus there was a serious discussion surrounding "the loss of China" in 1949. Turns out you cannot loose something unless you owned it. No one challenged the "loss of China," they debated about whose fault it was!


----------



## dilloduck

gnarlylove said:


> As Americans it's our inalienable right to own the world, space, and the whole damn enchilada. It means we can pollute until there is no planet left and still think it's our right to annihilate ourselves.
> 
> Thus there was a serious discussion surrounding "the loss of China" in 1949. Turns out you cannot loose something unless you owned it. No one challenged the "loss of China," they debated about whose fault it was!



Truman blew it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> That's not even a reply. GDP does not exist without production. We cannot produce an infinite amount of stuff. Take the 6th grade math question on your homework: the earth has the materials to make 600,000 tons of concrete. If we assemble those materials and pave a road using 600,000 tons worth of concrete, does the Earth gain 600,000 tons or does it stay the same? The correct answer is the earth remains the same weight.
> 
> It is the same. You cannot create useful value or products without production. Production can only operate within our planet. Are you proposing wealth exists outside our finite planet? Maybe you think the earth is flat and extends infinitely. News flash: it's a finite planet and under no condition can infinite wealth be generated from a finite system. Do you really think you can count to infinity starting with finite numbers?



Wow, you missed the point, why am I not surprised?

You said that all increased wealth is tied to productivity. GDP has consistently grown faster than productivity, where is all that extra wealth coming from? Another question, if production is solely limited to our planet, how do you explain the fact that that the International Space Station exists? Did you know it was actually built in space? And that multiple companies have plans to actually mine various solar system bodies that are not on the Earth?


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I know plenty of people that bought PCs without paying for Windows.
> 
> By the way, IBM never had 90% of the market. Also, they licensed MS-DOS from Jobs, not the other way around. Jobs kept the rights and sold it to other companies at the same time. The reason it took so much of the market was it was built to run on Intel chips.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, maybe it was 81% not 90%.
> 
> You off your meds today?  Jobs worked for Apple not Microsoft.
> 
> IBM paid for MS-DOS, IBM did all the testing, IBM re-wrote it for Billy.  Anyways I'm not talking about MS-DOS, nimrod.  I'm talking about Windows, duh.
> 
> Here's a rough primer on the issue.
> Bundling of Microsoft Windows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how IBM didn't build Windows either, but don't let facts destroy your narrative.
> 
> PC clones had a fairly large percentage of the market at one time, but IBM never even got up to 50%.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they built windows jerk.  I didn't say they had the majority of the puny "PC" market.  Put down the alcohol.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> You said that all increased wealth is tied to productivity. GDP has consistently grown faster than productivity, where is all that extra wealth coming from?



The answer is speculation and credit. Is credit based in actual production? No. It's based on future expectations. When you borrow 10,000, the bank assumes it has another 10,000 + interest and so it adds that to its existing figures and lends all but 10% of that out despite the fact the credit is not yet real and may never become real. Thereby banks can "create wealth" by credit, which isn't based in real production. So naturally wealth that is not grounded in real production on Earth, namely speculation, can and does indeed mimic infinite generation although it takes a crazy person to say "here on this blue rock lies infinity." It is no different than saying "I the madman have counted to infinity starting from 1."

Moreover, the speculative economy is juxtaposed with the term "real economy" among economists all the time. Even you make this distinction by showing GDP fails to match speculation. So why are you arguing speculation is real when you know by its very nature it's not based in the here and now, its based on futures, stock options etc.? If you care to learn more read here: The Real Economy & the Bubble Economy :: Monthly Review

Again, the world is finite. No finite system can generate infinite results. It is a tautology. Either you get it or you keep dancing around this self-evident truth.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Another question, if production is solely limited to our planet, how do you explain the fact that that the International Space Station exists? Did you know it was actually built in space? And that multiple companies have plans to actually mine various solar system bodies that are not on the Earth?



Was the ISS created from materials from outside our finite planet? Even if it was created from products from our solar system, we know that the Milky Way solar system is finite, it has a defined boundary in the space-time continuum. Boundaries imply finitude.

You are grasping at straws to argue the ISS has value. It has literally no value outside the fact it exists so close to Earth. Give up your indefensible position. I know its hard for the first time in your life to realize you are wrong, but it makes you stronger to be able to admit flaws so you can make improvements.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can take away all three----try again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try.  But you better bring a big gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bring a gun when you can bring an army of Federal Agents to defend a State's right to take said liberties away on a whim?  See Wacko mass murders.  See Katrina disarming of the citizens to "protect" them from themselves for demonstrations. See Un-Patriot act drone killings of American citizens.
> 
> The 14th amendment due process clause allows the states, and by inclusion feds acting on behalf of the states, to take our life, liberty, and happiness away from us by merely making up whatever excuse they want and calling it due process.
Click to expand...


Indeed, these are outrages.  Still you're not saying that natural rights don't exist, are you?

You're moral outrage--and right you are!--arises from somewhere inside you, not from without.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe
> 
> Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth.  That is the purpose of those who  engage in commercial enterprise.  And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives.  And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what planet are you talking about? You and dblack are just saying things that sound pleasant to you because you believe them. But in order for beliefs to be rational they must be defensible. Neither of you are participating in defensible argument. Let me explain why because you have no clue what I'm talking about, because neither of you have ever cared to investigate what the rules of logic are and what constitutes a cogent proposition--one that is supported by evidence.
> 
> Fox, if you admit human beings garner wealth in free markets, then you must also recognize the fact that humans also will use their wealth for leverage into gaining access to more wealth. It is as human as masturbaiton for a person who finds himself with more than others to use that accumulation to generate even greater accumulation.
> 
> Now please consider the real world (which you clearly don't do often in debate). What do persons who have a lot of money do? They use whatever means within law (and outside of technical legality) to gain ever greater sums. How do they do this? Please look at reality! They took Federal Election Commission to the Supreme Court to expand political donations per election cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about !!!!!!!!! A wrench has been thrown into free markets by virtue of wealthy persons (i.e. corporations) have 100% say in politics and the people have none.
> 
> That is some kind of upside "liberty" that your espousing, which inevitably leads to this scenario. Defining liberty as natural rights not being infringed upon precisely undermines your whole argument because free markets always end up with the markets favoring the winners who naturally exploit losers in order to make even greater sums. Thus the losers are further cast into loser-hood. Sounds like a great reality to live in, which we do!
> 
> So you may start with a free market but you end up with people using their leverages to influence law so that they are increasingly favored, drowning out all other voices. I thought freedom was where people had a say in their own lives. We currently don't. Tell me how you vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs?
Click to expand...


Well, it wasn't we classical liberals who yammered for the Sixteenth Amendment.  We fought against its ratification.  Grab a time machine, go back and assassinate Wilson.  Problem solved.

'Course, I got a feelin' you think Ive gone off the deep end.  But if you solve this riddle, you'll open up a whole new world of truth in which things are even worse than you imagine.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are accusing socialists of excessive pride in claiming some people are rich and others are not?
> 
> What's more is you claim that ownership does not imply reduced availability. So if Monsanto owns 10% of the world, does that mean there is still 100% available? No. It means the rest of the inhabitant must do with 90%. What if 1% of the world owns 40% of its wealth? What does that leave for 99% of people? You're right, 60%. And believe it or not, 40% of the world really is owned by 1%. World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers | Money | The Guardian
> 
> I know you don't take reality serious but this planet is finite. Corporations can only claim a finite amount. So if corporations own half the world, they are winners. We both agree. Does that mean they are benefiting the rest? Not necessarily. *People do not always act in the interests of other people. And indeed those in power often act in their own interests to the dismay of other groups. Right?* How do you think this dynamic of 1% owning 40% influences the rest of the inhabitants? Take a look around, figuratively. There is abjection among the world's poor. Why is that? That is precisely because corporations have claimed ownership of lands and drove subsistence farmers off in order to make cash crops. How does this benefit people who were living on the land and now are forced into cities or hillsides?
> 
> Did those drive from their land in Haiti or Cuba or Malaysia (I could go on and on) people loose? Now they are tied into depending on markets whereas they once were completely free human beings without any needs of the global market.
> 
> *Winners on a finite world implies losers. Just like if there are 100 jelly beans and I take 90, does that leave you with 100 also?
> *
> On "planet-dblack" the world is infinite and infinite growth is possible. Thus we can have winners without losers. And in your narrow and obviously false premise, you know that our planet is finite. But you refuse to admit that* if you take away from the totality, you no longer have access to the totality. The totality has shrunk. Shrinking is not different from loosing. The more elites have, the less that can be distributed among people. I'm not saying corporations and the rich don't give back or distribute, but the only way profit exists is they keep more than they distribute. Thus, the people loose.*
Click to expand...


Zero-sum gain?  What is more:  a 10% slice of a big honkin' pie or a 30% slice of an incy wincy little pie?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are*
> 
> *G.T. et. al.*, the immediate origin of *natural* rights is, uh, you know, _*nature*_, and the God of nature is the ultimate origin.
> 
> While one need not appeal to God to demonstrate their actuality and inviolability, as I have already shown, *Quantum*, one must never forget the fact of their ultimate origin.  One does not prove what innate rights are with syllogisms predicated on _ability_ or _free will_.  Natural rights are not synonymous to _ability_ and they are not predicated on _ability_.  The matter is not abstract in the sense that the know-nothings would have it, but it's not that simple either.  The origin and the essence of the natural rights of man have been established for centuries.  The concrete concerns on which they are immediately predicated and their identity have been established for centuries.
> 
> Disregard the implications regarding the ultimate origin of natural rights, you will end up making indefensible arguments regarding their nature and identity.
> 
> Please, stop trying to reinvent the wheel.  It only confuses matters.
> 
> Natural rights are immediately predicated on the same real-world, dichotomic dynamics that divulge their exact identity:  *light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions and its correlate initial force-defensive force.*
> 
> Period.  End of discussion.  They are *real-world* concerns.  They are *natural*.  They are *concrete*.  They are *material*.  They are *absolute*.  Hence, they are identified and demonstrated accordingly.  They are not identified and demonstrated with syllogisms predicated on secondary concerns.
> 
> I have the ability to wiggle my toes.  So what?
> 
> I could lose that ability should some paralysis strike me.  The point here is that _when_ one argues natural rights on the basis of innate abilities, *one fallaciously implies that they are subject to negation by the whims of other agents.*  They are not inalienable in the sense that they *cannot (ability)* be suppressed or violated; they are inalienable in the sense that they *may not (consent)* be suppressed or violated without dire consequences, which may include the use deadly force.
> 
> In the absence of violation, we have peace; in the presence of violation, war.
> 
> In other words, they are identified and demonstrated on the basis of the *material* impact that human actions have on the *material* concerns of human life, liberty and property.  Period.
> 
> So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable _because_ they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of _ability_.
> 
> RABBI, G.T. ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?
> 
> DO YOU GET THE POINT OF THE FOLLOWING _NOW_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that the mutual obligations of morality are not pertinent to understanding the essence of natural rights, particularly as they are carried over from the state of nature and expressed in the state of civil government, is false and irrational. Obviously, the understanding of this goes to their parameters, RABBI, *one of the several things that accordingly you supposedly cannot be determined by sentient beings--for crying out loud!*  And that is self-evident too, given the necessities of the government's regulatory and judicial authority regarding the legitimate extent of civil liberties in the face of conflicting interests.
> 
> How about you stop wasting our time with your obviously ill-considered and fallacious claims as you think to preemptively negate the manifestly essential premises of natural law.
> 
> Your ignorance and closed-minded, intellectual bigotry are not the stuff of real arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________
> 
> Edit:  So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable _because_ they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of _ability_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you said refutes the point that natural rights only exist as ideas.  They do not exist as facts.
Click to expand...


Well, aside from the fact that it is self-evident that they _do_ exist in every sense there is . . . in nature and as ultimately grounded in the mind of God, let's put what you just said through the wringer--stripped of its caveats, but with the identical predicate intact--and see what comes out the other side.

Natural rights only exist, but don't exist.

What is a fact about something, after all, but an idea about that something?  Or do facts exist without sentience?  And if so, in what sense would they matter in the absence of sentience?

Here's an interesting link: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

But, first, check this one out: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dcraelin said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others.  The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.
> I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are ideas made into reality.
Click to expand...


So the idea of government existed _before_ the actuality of government existed?

_Where_ did the idea of government exist before?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> On question, what makes you think wealth is finite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wealth?
> 
> Wealth is surplus value.
> 
> How is surplus value created?
> 
> Not from thin air but from productive labor.
> 
> Productive labor has a finite system with which to work (earth).
> 
> Therefore, surplus value is finite or *real wealth* is finite.
> 
> If you think wealth is printed money and credit, try eating printed money or your credit card when there's no planet on which to do productive labor. You'll find that money has no value. No body denies this, our currency is known as fiat--without basis.
Click to expand...


I'm a simple man.  I like inputs-output.

So you're saying that all the inputs are finitely . . .  _static_?  Yet the value of the output has been growing faster than the costs of the inputs.  So greater efficiency and innovations--or is it the greater efficiency of innovations?--are of no affect in the equation, and what of the inputs, raw materials, beyond planet Earth?  Are human resources finite?  Static? Or finitely static?

I've always believed that the value of the output, both in terms of revenue and finished products, has been outpacing the costs of the inputs, but in light of what you're saying, I'm trying to understand how that could be so.

I'm also wondering about what things like digital information and nanotechnology do to your finite--or is it static?--inputs.


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you three.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can take away all three----try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try.  But you better bring a big gun.
Click to expand...


And this is where your whole argument collapses.

It's pretty confused too.

You folks are ascribing that rights are "natural" like instinct or biological functions.

And they are not.

You might have gotten some traction if you had subscribed to the notion that protocol is something that is "baseline" to human abilities. But even then, humans recognize different protocols depending upon nurture. And protocol is common in nature. Most animals have some method of setting up protocols been other animals of the same species. Like "marking territory" or that sort of thing.

"Rights" however, still stand as a human construct. And our 'western' notion of what rights are, exactly, is part of an evolutionary process.

We continue to define what government is and what we want it to do.

There isn't some "ironclad" never changing thing about it.

And it is a necessary part of insuring that we have these "inalienable" rights.


----------



## Intense

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



Does Truth or Justice exist outside of Government? Of course it does. Why wouldn't unalienable rights? There is a sense inside each one of us that has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong action, right and wrong intent. This sense is more than the training wheels society imposes on us, further, it is arguably the source of what society does establish, tested through all time, passed on from generation to generation.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Intense said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Truth or Justice exist outside of Government? Of course it does. Why wouldn't unalienable rights? There is a sense inside each one of us that has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong action, right and wrong intent. This sense is more than the training wheels society imposes on us, further, it is arguably the source of what society does establish, tested through all time, passed on from generation to generation.
Click to expand...


Some of the most well behaved, polite and social people I have ever met, were bushmen - supposedly "uncivilized" people.


----------



## editec

> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?



In a theoretical way.

IN reality?  of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.


----------



## dblack

editec said:


> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
Click to expand...


So, if rights aren't protected, even if they're never violated, they don't exist? I guess I'm thinking of a scenario where people voluntarily respect each others rights - without any government involvement. Honestly, this describes the status quo in most communities, most of the time. That doesn't count?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if rights aren't protected, even if they're never violated, they don't exist? I guess I'm thinking of a scenario where people voluntarily respect each others rights - without any government involvement. Honestly, this describes the status quo in most communities, most of the time. That doesn't count?
Click to expand...


They don't exist because nature doesn't concern itself with rights. Rights are conferred, imposed, bestowed,granted etc . There is no authority to do this act unless one is willing to concede that there is a higher power. I suspect that's the part of the agenda here anyway. Are humans guaranteed to be treated a certain way if there is no God or Government ?


----------



## dcraelin

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?
> 
> 
> 
> It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are ideas made into reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the idea of government existed _before_ the actuality of government existed?
> _Where_ did the idea of government exist before?
Click to expand...


I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.


----------



## dilloduck

dcraelin said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.
> 
> They are ideas made into reality.
> 
> 
> 
> So the idea of government existed _before_ the actuality of government existed?
> _Where_ did the idea of government exist before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.
Click to expand...


Pretty much----the first alternative to beating the shit out of each other to get what we wanted/needed.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

editec said:


> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
Click to expand...


What is this _reality_ in which they don't exist?  Would you define it?  In other words, what do you mean by _reality_?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is this _reality_ in which they don't exist?  Would you define it?  In other words, what do you mean by _reality_?
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dcraelin said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.
> 
> They are ideas made into reality.
> 
> 
> 
> So the idea of government existed _before_ the actuality of government existed?
> _Where_ did the idea of government exist before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.
Click to expand...



So _family_ or_ tribe _aren't ideas about something?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the idea of government existed _before_ the actuality of government existed?
> _Where_ did the idea of government exist before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So _family_ or_ tribe _aren't ideas about something?
Click to expand...


They are more than ideas. They exist.


----------



## RKMBrown

M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can try.  But you better bring a big gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bring a gun when you can bring an army of Federal Agents to defend a State's right to take said liberties away on a whim?  See Wacko mass murders.  See Katrina disarming of the citizens to "protect" them from themselves for demonstrations. See Un-Patriot act drone killings of American citizens.
> 
> The 14th amendment due process clause allows the states, and by inclusion feds acting on behalf of the states, to take our life, liberty, and happiness away from us by merely making up whatever excuse they want and calling it due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, these are outrages.  Still you're not saying that natural rights don't exist, are you?
> 
> You're moral outrage--and right you are!--arises from somewhere inside you, not from without.
Click to expand...


The concept of a natural right, presupposes the means to defend said right, for if not defended then it was not a right at all but merely a hope or a platitude.

Defense of said right can come in many forms.  Self defense, group defense, ...  The group can be a loosely coupled mob, a well defined organization, a local, state, or federal government.

Thus, the inclusion or exclusion of federal government defense of said rights, natural or otherwise is merely scope for the defense of said rights.

Of course, for every individual and / or group wanting and or providing for said defense there are normally equal forces opposing said rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.

But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'.  I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept.  In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.

"Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same.  Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.

In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do.  Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees.  Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them.  Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her.  To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.

Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be.  And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.
> 
> But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'.  I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept.  In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.
> 
> "Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same.  Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.
> 
> In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do.  Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees.  Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them.  Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her.  To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.
> 
> Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be.  And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.



You are tying your self up in knots trying to recursively define liberty and natural rights.

It's not that hard.

lib·er·ty: 
1. the quality or state of being free:
a :  the power to do as one pleases
b :  freedom from physical restraint
c :  freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d :  the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e :  the power of choice
(Websters)

What liberty is not:
The liberty to take someone's liberty away from them.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights


----------



## dilloduck

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind. 

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?


----------



## emilynghiem

I was going to post a list of examples of natural laws that exist and affect human behavior
(regardless if we write them down as religious scriptures or secular/civil laws
or recognize them as existent at all much less as universal for all people).

1. laws of supply and demand
2. law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, pack mentality or pecking order social caste or hierarchy
to establish dominance of stronger over submissive or leaders over followers
3. respect for elders or ancestors, lineage, passing down traditions as cultural identity,
when in Rome do as the Romans do
4. checks and balances, for every action there is equal and opposite reaction
5. laws of karma, cause and effect, justice, consequences to actions
6. laws of attraction (positive or negative begets more of the same), scarcity vs abundance
mentality, forgiveness brings healing while unforgiveness blocks with destructive energy
7. influence from local to global, connection between individual and collective; natural compassion or conscience for others
8. spiritual or social development in stages, also stages of grief and recovery process
9. all human experience on three levels of body, mind and spiritual or collective level
10. learning curve by trial and error, experience, scientific method of studying problems to develop solutions
11. path of least resistance: human will, desire for free will, consent or control in decisions; resistance to change leads to opposition or protest, conflicts can escalate into violence
12. pain/pleasure principle, choices and perception biased by mental/emotional association with experiences which affects how we interpret events and concepts in life

I was trying to explain that even if people don't believe or think in terms of "natural rights"
the same experiences, actions and reactions in relationships between people in society
can still be expressed using general terms that describe "universal laws" or principles that apply to all people.

Even if you believe the only force in life is the "law of the jungle"
you are basically framing all events under this principle as "universal to all people"

It's still a form of recognizing some underlying law that operates
independent of any manmade laws or government.

This principles come first, by nature, and then all other laws
or relationships are defined or expressed by those forces of nature.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?



You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> I was going to post a list of examples of natural laws that exist and affect human behavior
> (regardless if we write them down as religious scriptures or secular/civil laws
> or recognize them as existent at all much less as universal for all people).
> 
> 1. laws of supply and demand
> 2. survival of the fittest, pack mentality or pecking order social caste or hierarchy
> to establish dominance of stronger over submissive or leaders over followers
> 3. respect for elders or ancestors, lineage, passing down traditions as cultural identity,
> when in Rome do as the Romans do
> 4. checks and balances, for every action there is equal and opposite reaction
> 5. laws of karma, cause and effect, justice, consequences to actions
> 6. laws of attraction (positive or negative begets more of the same), scarcity vs abundance
> mentality, forgiveness brings healing while unforgiveness blocks with destructive energy
> 7. influence from local to global, connection between individual and collective; natural compassion or conscience for others
> 8. spiritual or social development in stages, also stages of grief and recovery process
> 9. all human experience on three levels of body, mind and spiritual or collective level
> 10. learning curve by trial and error, experience, scientific method of studying problems to develop solutions
> 11. path of least resistance: human will, desire for free will, consent or control in decisions; resistance to change leads to opposition or protest, conflicts can escalate into violence
> 12. pain/pleasure principle, choices and perception biased by mental/emotional association with experiences which affects how we interpret events and concepts in life



laws of karma


----------



## dilloduck

Survival of the fittest ? 

We better stop right there.
These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.

( you forgot the law of gravity )

Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
Click to expand...


I can define a phoenix for you. It doesn't mean they exist.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
.
While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

_Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
Click to expand...


Morality makes it sound so religious tho.

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as 
Thou shalt not kill.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this _reality_ in which they don't exist?  Would you define it?  In other words, what do you mean by _reality_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.
Click to expand...


Well, then, you are obviously wrong, aren't you?

The rights of private property, for example, have existed since the dawn of man at the very least in one code of law or another.  For examples, they exist in natural law, Hammurabi law, Mosaic Law, Roman Law, Grecian Law, common law, constitutional law, case law. . . .

What else are you wrong about?


----------



## RKMBrown

M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
Click to expand...


Baloney.  Why don't you just argue how big bigger is.  Or how fair fairness is.  Natural rights have nothing to do with morality of nature, mother nature, or any other such nonsensical whimsical blathering.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this _reality_ in which they don't exist?  Would you define it?  In other words, what do you mean by _reality_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then, you are obviously wrong, aren't you?
> 
> The rights of private property, for example, have existed since the dawn of man at the very least in one code of law or another.  For examples, they exist in natural law, Hammurabi law, Mosaic Law, Roman Law, Grecian Law, common law, constitutional law, case law. . . .
> 
> What else are you wrong about?
Click to expand...


So how much property does everyone have a natural right to ?


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.



While one might think the right to life is a natural right, said right was taken from us in the 14th Amendment when Due Process as determined by the tyranny of the majority.  

So as you say ... it may be that all of our Natural rights have been taken already. Perhaps to be taken back by us or our children at some future point.  Rise o Phoenix... Rise!


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, you are obviously wrong, aren't you?
> 
> The rights of private property, for example, have existed since the dawn of man at the very least in one code of law or another.  For examples, they exist in natural law, Hammurabi law, Mosaic Law, Roman Law, Grecian Law, common law, constitutional law, case law. . . .
> 
> What else are you wrong about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how much property does everyone have a natural right to ?
Click to expand...


Finders keepers...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality makes it sound so religious tho.
> 
> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.
Click to expand...


Stop it.  I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.

No.  There is no _we_ here.  There is only you relativists making baby talk.  You're not looking for anything.  

All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.

And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk:  There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?

As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished.  Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic.  The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever.  Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.

Nothing you say makes any sense at all.  It's sheer irrationalism.  

You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy.  Let me help you:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one might think the right to life is a natural right, said right was taken from us in the 14th Amendment when Due Process as determined by the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> So as you say ... it may be that all of our Natural rights have been taken already. Perhaps to be taken back by us or our children at some future point.  Rise o Phoenix... Rise!
Click to expand...


no worries----we never had any natural rights in the first place. If we had any they would be the same as what some bird or fish has.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one might think the right to life is a natural right, said right was taken from us in the 14th Amendment when Due Process as determined by the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> So as you say ... it may be that all of our Natural rights have been taken already. Perhaps to be taken back by us or our children at some future point.  Rise o Phoenix... Rise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no worries----we never had any natural rights in the first place. If we had any they would be the same as what some bird or fish has.
Click to expand...


Fish and Birds have more clearly defined rights in this country than the people do.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality makes it sound so religious tho.
> 
> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.
> 
> No.  There is no _we_ here.  There is only you relativists making baby talk.  You're not looking for anything.
> 
> All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.
> 
> And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk:  There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?
> 
> As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished.  Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic.  The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever.  Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.
> 
> Nothing you say makes any sense at all.  It's sheer irrationalism.
> 
> You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy.  Let me help you:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


poppycock---humans are animals----we do what we do regardless of any so called rights involved. You are simply trying to re label human behavior to suit your purpose.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.
> 
> But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'.  I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept.  In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.
> 
> "Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same.  Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.
> 
> In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do.  Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees.  Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them.  Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her.  To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.
> 
> Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be.  And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are tying your self up in knots trying to recursively define liberty and natural rights.
> 
> It's not that hard.
> 
> lib·er·ty:
> 1. the quality or state of being free:
> a :  the power to do as one pleases
> b :  freedom from physical restraint
> c :  freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
> d :  the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
> e :  the power of choice
> (Websters)
> 
> What liberty is not:
> The liberty to take someone's liberty away from them.
> 
> Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
> Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I am not tying myself up in knots at all.  I am doing my damndest however, to discuss the obvious dichotomy that exists within the concept.

Even your Webster definition followed by your opinion of what liberty is not immediately falls within that dichotomy.  How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans.  The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended.  However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in.  Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.
> 
> But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'.  I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept.  In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.
> 
> "Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same.  Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.
> 
> In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do.  Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees.  Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them.  Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her.  To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.
> 
> Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be.  And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are tying your self up in knots trying to recursively define liberty and natural rights.
> 
> It's not that hard.
> 
> lib·er·ty:
> 1. the quality or state of being free:
> a :  the power to do as one pleases
> b :  freedom from physical restraint
> c :  freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
> d :  the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
> e :  the power of choice
> (Websters)
> 
> What liberty is not:
> The liberty to take someone's liberty away from them.
> 
> Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
> Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not tying myself up in knots at all.  I am doing my damndest however, to discuss the obvious dichotomy that exists within the concept.
> 
> Even your Webster definition followed by your opinion of what liberty is not immediately falls within that dichotomy.  How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?
> 
> In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans.  The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended.  However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in.  Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.
Click to expand...


In simpler terms we have natural rights or we don't  but what occurs in society is that a decision is made as to which behaviors are appropriate and which are to be punished. Whether they are natural or not is of no consequence.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?
> 
> In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans.  The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended.  However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in.  Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.



Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts.  They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever.  They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away.  IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.

To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?"  The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim. 

IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood.  To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous.  It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?
> 
> In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans.  The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended.  However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in.  Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts.  They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever.  They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away.  IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.
> 
> To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?"  The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.
> 
> IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood.  To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous.  It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.
Click to expand...


Therefore liberty in NOT an inalienable right but one that is entirely dependent on following the laws issued by the government.


----------



## gnarlylove

dilloduck said:


> Survival of the fittest ?
> 
> We better stop right there.
> These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.
> 
> ( you forgot the law of gravity )
> 
> Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.



karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.

So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.

I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## gnarlylove

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morality makes it sound so religious tho.
> 
> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.
> 
> No.  There is no _we_ here.  There is only you relativists making baby talk.  You're not looking for anything.
> 
> All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.
> 
> And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk:  There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?
> 
> As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished.  Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic.  The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever.  Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.
> 
> Nothing you say makes any sense at all.  It's sheer irrationalism.
> 
> You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy.  Let me help you:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Have you read Richard Rorty? Donald Davidson? They seem to offer extremely persuasive accounts of relativism, and stick to it without conflating their own proposition of relativism. It's quite refreshing. Maybe you could check out the intro or first 8 pages of Irony Contingency and Solidarity by Rorty on google books. Having not followed your argument, I apologize if I'm mistaken on the gist of this post.


----------



## dilloduck

gnarlylove said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest ?
> 
> We better stop right there.
> These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.
> 
> ( you forgot the law of gravity )
> 
> Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.
> 
> So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.
> 
> I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...


Our mission now is to decide which of those biological and intuitive notions should be encouraged and nurtured and which ones should sit in the back of the bus.

damn----I said that word "should" again.


----------



## Asclepias

gnarlylove said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest ?
> 
> We better stop right there.
> These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.
> 
> ( you forgot the law of gravity )
> 
> Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.
> 
> So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.
> 
> I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.
Click to expand...


I disagree that karma is magic.  Its is a very real phenomenon. Inherently it is neutral and only appears to be good or bad based on perspective.  I do agree with the rest of your post though.  What energy you put out into the world invariably returns to you.  We know thought is a physical action that causes electrical signals and frequencies to be produced. Thats why you are able to detect a genuine smile in a persons voice over the phone.  You attract what you are or even more specifically what you send out.  Is that a right?  The dictionary says no but its the closest thing we have to it.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Survival of the fittest ?
> 
> We better stop right there.
> These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.
> 
> ( you forgot the law of gravity )
> 
> Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.
> 
> So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.
> 
> I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree that karma is magic.  Its is a very real phenomenon. Inherently it is neutral and only appears to be good or bad based on perspective.  I do agree with the rest of your post though.  What energy you put out into the world invariably returns to you.  We know thought is a physical action that causes electrical signals and frequencies to be produced. Thats why you are able to detect a genuine smile in a persons voice over the phone.  You attract what you are or even more specifically what you send out.  Is that a right?  The dictionary says no but its the closest thing we have to it.
Click to expand...


Attributing some good stroke of luck that happens to you in the present to something  good that you did in the past is fantasy. A coincidence that people love to give significance to.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney.  Why don't you just argue how big bigger is.  Or how fair fairness is.  Natural rights have nothing to do with morality of nature, mother nature, or any other such nonsensical whimsical blathering.
Click to expand...


So the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, for example, on which this nation was founded, by the way, is _not_ the morality of human conduct, human interaction and human rights as derived from nature?

That's your contention?

Well, then, if you know what natural law and the natural rights thereof _are not_ in history, you must know what they _are_ in history, right?

What are they in history?

By all means, tell us.  Teach us.  Explain it to us. 

What are you getting so bent out of shape for?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality makes it sound so religious tho.
> 
> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.
> 
> No.  There is no _we_ here.  There is only you relativists making baby talk.  You're not looking for anything.
> 
> All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.
> 
> And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk:  There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?
> 
> As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished.  Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic.  The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever.  Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.
> 
> Nothing you say makes any sense at all.  It's sheer irrationalism.
> 
> You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy.  Let me help you:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read Richard Rorty? Donald Davidson? They seem to offer extremely persuasive accounts of relativism, and stick to it without conflating their own proposition of relativism. It's quite refreshing. Maybe you could check out the intro or first 8 pages of Irony Contingency and Solidarity by Rorty on google books. Having not followed your argument, I apologize if I'm mistaken on the gist of this post.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Sallow

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So _family_ or_ tribe _aren't ideas about something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are more than ideas. They exist.
Click to expand...


Not really.

They are another extension of how we humans view the world.


----------



## gnarlylove

It's clear that whatever "should" be encouraged must have a universal quality. Currently is it not being applied universally. Exceptions, like the elites, have ran the show for too long. We need to stand firmly against this mockery of justice and the good. This is why employ terms like natural rights, because supposedly all people should have the right to whatever we define as rights, like Bin Laden deserved a trial, as do all people accused of any crime. The Nuremberg  trail clearly states this.

So debating about what these rights are is a matter of viewing all people as people. unfortunately the world evidently treats blacks, muslims, minorities and "terrorists" as lesser peoples or not people at all with no rights. This is an abomination of rights and justice yet it seems axiomatic among the ruling elite--precisely those who determine what rights are and who gets them! Thus natural rights are fictions because they are not applied universally.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?
> 
> In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans.  The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended.  However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in.  Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts.  They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever.  They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away.  IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.
> 
> To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?"  The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.
> 
> IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood.  To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous.  It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore liberty in NOT an inalienable right but one that is entirely dependent on following the laws issued by the government.
Click to expand...


I suppose one could argue that people have taken liberty with the use of the adjective inalienable.


----------



## dilloduck

Sallow said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So _family_ or_ tribe _aren't ideas about something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are more than ideas. They exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> They are another extension of how we humans view the world.
Click to expand...


LOL  tribes, families, clans etc do not exist ? This I gotta hear


----------



## RKMBrown

M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.  Why don't you just argue how big bigger is.  Or how fair fairness is.  Natural rights have nothing to do with morality of nature, mother nature, or any other such nonsensical whimsical blathering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, for example, on which this nation was founded, by the way, is _not_ the morality of human conduct, human interaction and human rights as derived from nature?
> 
> That's your contention?
> 
> Well, then, if you know what natural law and the natural rights thereof _are not_ in history, you must know what they _are_ in history, right?
> 
> What are they in history?
> 
> By all means, tell us.  Teach us.  Explain it to us.
> 
> What are you getting so bent out of shape for?
Click to expand...


What part of the whimsical blathering confused you?  Did politicians and lawmakers wax romantic with sweeping self-proclaimed statements of support by a broad swath of history?  Yes.  

The formers had the right idea.  Leave the blathering and sweeping proclamations of rights out of the document but for prefatory clauses, and instead list the shit government can't do to us.  Funny how they called it the bill of rights, then proceeded to write a list of restrictions on government to take away rights.  Not funny that the government then proceeded to render all prior amendments moot in writing the 14th due process clause then forcing the south to agree under threat of death.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?
> 
> In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans.  The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended.  However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in.  Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts.  They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever.  They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away.  IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.
> 
> To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?"  The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.
> 
> IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood.  To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous.  It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.
Click to expand...


Liberty, as one person interprets it, can indeed include the ability to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.  Look at rioters who believe they are being virtuous when they destroy property, threaten or assault people, become violent etc. because in their view they are supporting or promoting some virtuous concept or protesting some vile principle or act.  Many interpret liberty as forbidding a person from consuming addictive drugs or alcohol or from engaging in gambling or prostitution because in their view, they are righteous and noble to save another person from his own destructive choices.  The politically correct police applauded protests and pickets and petitions to punish Chick-fil-a or Duck Dynasty star or a others for a politically incorrect point of view, etc.

All these can and have been promoted as concepts of 'liberty', even believing the Constitution protects and condones such activities.  The 'liberty' to force others to conform to what is good, and right, and virtuous.

This goes far beyond society choosing to prevent or punish those who violate the unalienable rights- of others; i.e. arresting and/or incarcerating thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

That  is NOT the liberty embodied in unalienable/natural/God given rights as the Founders saw that, however.  True liberty allows somebody to be good or bad, virtuous or immoral, religious or non religious,  tolerant of all or bigoted or racist or some other -ist, just so long as that is not forced upon any other.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts.  They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever.  They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away.  IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.
> 
> To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?"  The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.
> 
> IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood.  To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous.  It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore liberty in NOT an inalienable right but one that is entirely dependent on following the laws issued by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose one could argue that people have taken liberty with the use of the adjective inalienable.
Click to expand...


I suspect that Locke et al meant that certain rights should be treated as such.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?
> 
> In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans.  The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended.  However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in.  Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts.  They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever.  They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away.  IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.
> 
> To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?"  The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.
> 
> IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood.  To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous.  It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberty, as one person interprets it, can indeed include the ability to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.  No.  Liberty is not open for interpretation.
> 
> Look at rioters who believe they are being virtuous when they destroy property, threaten or assault people, become violent etc. because in their view they are supporting or promoting some virtuous concept or protesting some vile principle or act.  No.  Those things are not virtuous, they are the opposite of virtuous. While your violent acts on others may satiate your desire for revenge, these are not virtuous acts. Defensible perhaps but not virtuous.
> 
> Many interpret liberty as forbidding a person from consuming addictive drugs or alcohol or from engaging in gambling or prostitution because in their view, they are righteous and noble to save another person from his own destructive choices.  No. That's not liberty that's authority. Again you appear to be deflecting for authoritarian desires to take away liberty. Authority to take away liberty is not liberty.
> 
> The politically correct police applauded protests and pickets and petitions to punish Chick-fil-a or Duck Dynasty star or a others for a politically incorrect point of view, etc.And it would be their liberty to do so.
> 
> All these can and have been promoted as concepts of 'liberty', even believing the Constitution protects and condones such activities.
> 
> The 'liberty' to force others to conform to what is good, and right, and virtuous.  No. No. No.  Liberty is not liberty to force.  That is a gross distortion used by authoritarians to take liberty away.  You are justifying your means based on your desire to reach some end that you believe to be good.
> 
> This goes far beyond society choosing to prevent or punish those who violate the unalienable rights- of others; i.e. arresting and/or incarcerating thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.
> 
> That  is NOT the liberty embodied in unalienable/natural/God given rights as the Founders saw that, however.  True liberty allows somebody to be good or bad, virtuous or immoral, religious or non religious,  tolerant of all or bigoted or racist or some other -ist, just so long as that is not forced upon any other.
Click to expand...


Your definition of True liberty and use of the term is just more deflection for the authoritarians who justify their use of force as a means to an end.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore liberty in NOT an inalienable right but one that is entirely dependent on following the laws issued by the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose one could argue that people have taken liberty with the use of the adjective inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect that Locke et al meant that certain rights should be treated as such.
Click to expand...


Treated as such by our federal government.. yes.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose one could argue that people have taken liberty with the use of the adjective inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that Locke et al meant that certain rights should be treated as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treated as such by our federal government.. yes.
Click to expand...


Too bad that over the years our govt has proven that those rights can be easily interpreted and legislated away from us. So much for that inalienable stuff. Maybe that's why people are looking for natural ones.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morality makes it sound so religious tho.
> 
> We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
> Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.
> 
> No.  There is no _we_ here.  There is only you relativists making baby talk.  You're not looking for anything.
> 
> All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.
> 
> And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk:  There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?
> 
> As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished.  Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic.  The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever.  Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.
> 
> Nothing you say makes any sense at all.  It's sheer irrationalism.
> 
> You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy.  Let me help you:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poppycock---humans are animals----we do what we do regardless of any so called rights involved. You are simply trying to re label human behavior to suit your purpose.
Click to expand...


I agree.  Human beings can do whatever they please insofar as the thing they please to do is within their power to do it, and, yes, human beings may do any such thing in spite of  the existence of any rights.  Human beings do that all the time, mostly due to ignorance or fear.  We do what we do by nature.  We do what we are by nature.  Natural law doesn't deny any of these things in the above.  These are the very things that it asserts.

So, why do you say _poppycock_?  

Do  you believe the above or not?

What is this about my purpose?  What is my purpose according to you?  Your knowledge regarding my alleged purpose is not in evidence.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.
> 
> No.  There is no _we_ here.  There is only you relativists making baby talk.  You're not looking for anything.
> 
> All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.
> 
> And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk:  There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?
> 
> As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished.  Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic.  The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever.  Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.
> 
> Nothing you say makes any sense at all.  It's sheer irrationalism.
> 
> You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy.  Let me help you:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poppycock---humans are animals----we do what we do regardless of any so called rights involved. You are simply trying to re label human behavior to suit your purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Human beings can do whatever they please insofar as the thing they please to do is within their power to do it, and, yes, human beings may do any such thing in spite of  the existence of any rights.  Human beings do that all the time, mostly due to ignorance or fear.  We do what we do by nature.  We do what we are by nature.  Natural law doesn't deny any of these things in the above.  These are the very things that it asserts.
> 
> So, why do you say _poppycock_?
> 
> Do  you believe the above or not?
> 
> What is this about my purpose?  What is my purpose according to you?  Your knowledge regarding my alleged purpose is not in evidence.
Click to expand...


sorry--didn't mean to accuse you personally. I'm merely assuming that is what the agenda is in trying to take the next step and call what occurs naturally a " right". Rights are similar to licenses or permission slips. Someone gives them to you. In nature there is no need to have the right to do anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, maybe it was 81% not 90%.
> 
> You off your meds today?  Jobs worked for Apple not Microsoft.
> 
> IBM paid for MS-DOS, IBM did all the testing, IBM re-wrote it for Billy.  Anyways I'm not talking about MS-DOS, nimrod.  I'm talking about Windows, duh.
> 
> Here's a rough primer on the issue.
> Bundling of Microsoft Windows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how IBM didn't build Windows either, but don't let facts destroy your narrative.
> 
> PC clones had a fairly large percentage of the market at one time, but IBM never even got up to 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say they built windows jerk.  I didn't say they had the majority of the puny "PC" market.  Put down the alcohol.
Click to expand...


You also used your claim that IBM had the majority of the market they  never had to argue that they split off Microsoft/Windows in order to avoid being  broken up like Ma Bell. There are two minor problems with that claim.

IBM never had a majority of the market because their PCs were overpriced and easy to copy, hence the abundance of PC clones that flooded the market. FYI, at one time, Radio Shack was actually a major player in the PC market. 

The second major problem with that is they never owned Microsoft/Windows.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that all increased wealth is tied to productivity. GDP has consistently grown faster than productivity, where is all that extra wealth coming from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is speculation and credit. Is credit based in actual production? No. It's based on future expectations. When you borrow 10,000, the bank assumes it has another 10,000 + interest and so it adds that to its existing figures and lends all but 10% of that out despite the fact the credit is not yet real and may never become real. Thereby banks can "create wealth" by credit, which isn't based in real production. So naturally wealth that is not grounded in real production on Earth, namely speculation, can and does indeed mimic infinite generation although it takes a crazy person to say "here on this blue rock lies infinity." It is no different than saying "I the madman have counted to infinity starting from 1."
> 
> Moreover, the speculative economy is juxtaposed with the term "real economy" among economists all the time. Even you make this distinction by showing GDP fails to match speculation. So why are you arguing speculation is real when you know by its very nature it's not based in the here and now, its based on futures, stock options etc.? If you care to learn more read here: The Real Economy & the Bubble Economy :: Monthly Review
> 
> Again, the world is finite. No finite system can generate infinite results. It is a tautology. Either you get it or you keep dancing around this self-evident truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another question, if production is solely limited to our planet, how do you explain the fact that that the International Space Station exists? Did you know it was actually built in space? And that multiple companies have plans to actually mine various solar system bodies that are not on the Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the ISS created from materials from outside our finite planet? Even if it was created from products from our solar system, we know that the Milky Way solar system is finite, it has a defined boundary in the space-time continuum. Boundaries imply finitude.
> 
> You are grasping at straws to argue the ISS has value. It has literally no value outside the fact it exists so close to Earth. Give up your indefensible position. I know its hard for the first time in your life to realize you are wrong, but it makes you stronger to be able to admit flaws so you can make improvements.
Click to expand...


There is only one economy.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts.  They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever.  They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away.  IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.
> 
> To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?"  The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.
> 
> IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood.  To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous.  It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty, as one person interprets it, can indeed include the ability to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.  No.  Liberty is not open for interpretation.
> 
> Look at rioters who believe they are being virtuous when they destroy property, threaten or assault people, become violent etc. because in their view they are supporting or promoting some virtuous concept or protesting some vile principle or act.  No.  Those things are not virtuous, they are the opposite of virtuous. While your violent acts on others may satiate your desire for revenge, these are not virtuous acts. Defensible perhaps but not virtuous.
> 
> Many interpret liberty as forbidding a person from consuming addictive drugs or alcohol or from engaging in gambling or prostitution because in their view, they are righteous and noble to save another person from his own destructive choices.  No. That's not liberty that's authority. Again you appear to be deflecting for authoritarian desires to take away liberty. Authority to take away liberty is not liberty.
> 
> The politically correct police applauded protests and pickets and petitions to punish Chick-fil-a or Duck Dynasty star or a others for a politically incorrect point of view, etc.And it would be their liberty to do so.
> 
> All these can and have been promoted as concepts of 'liberty', even believing the Constitution protects and condones such activities.
> 
> The 'liberty' to force others to conform to what is good, and right, and virtuous.  No. No. No.  Liberty is not liberty to force.  That is a gross distortion used by authoritarians to take liberty away.  You are justifying your means based on your desire to reach some end that you believe to be good.
> 
> This goes far beyond society choosing to prevent or punish those who violate the unalienable rights- of others; i.e. arresting and/or incarcerating thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.
> 
> That  is NOT the liberty embodied in unalienable/natural/God given rights as the Founders saw that, however.  True liberty allows somebody to be good or bad, virtuous or immoral, religious or non religious,  tolerant of all or bigoted or racist or some other -ist, just so long as that is not forced upon any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definition of True liberty and use of the term is just more deflection for the authoritarians who justify their use of force as a means to an end.
Click to expand...


Well I would put my definition of liberty up against yours for consideration by any responsible panel to judge since I in no way justified authoritarianism in any sense other than government securing our rights.  But oh well. . . carry on.  Not that you wouldn't anyway.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if rights aren't protected, even if they're never violated, they don't exist? I guess I'm thinking of a scenario where people voluntarily respect each others rights - without any government involvement. Honestly, this describes the status quo in most communities, most of the time. That doesn't count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't exist because nature doesn't concern itself with rights. Rights are conferred, imposed, bestowed,granted etc . There is no authority to do this act unless one is willing to concede that there is a higher power. I suspect that's the part of the agenda here anyway. Are humans guaranteed to be treated a certain way if there is no God or Government ?
Click to expand...


I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this _reality_ in which they don't exist?  Would you define it?  In other words, what do you mean by _reality_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure you don't know what he meant.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney.  Why don't you just argue how big bigger is.  Or how fair fairness is.  Natural rights have nothing to do with morality of nature, mother nature, or any other such nonsensical whimsical blathering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, for example, on which this nation was founded, by the way, is _not_ the morality of human conduct, human interaction and human rights as derived from nature?
> 
> That's your contention?
> 
> Well, then, if you know what natural law and the natural rights thereof _are not_ in history, you must know what they _are_ in history, right?
> 
> What are they in history?
> 
> By all means, tell us.  Teach us.  Explain it to us.
> 
> What are you getting so bent out of shape for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of the whimsical blathering confused you?  Did politicians and lawmakers wax romantic with sweeping self-proclaimed statements of support by a broad swath of history?  Yes.
> 
> The formers had the right idea.  Leave the blathering and sweeping proclamations of rights out of the document but for prefatory clauses, and instead list the shit government can't do to us.  Funny how they called it the bill of rights, then proceeded to write a list of restrictions on government to take away rights.  Not funny that the government then proceeded to render all prior amendments moot in writing the 14th due process clause then forcing the south to agree under threat of death.
Click to expand...


What part of the actual essence of the following confused you?



RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
.
While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

_Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.

_______________________________________________________________________

You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how IBM didn't build Windows either, but don't let facts destroy your narrative.
> 
> PC clones had a fairly large percentage of the market at one time, but IBM never even got up to 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they built windows jerk.  I didn't say they had the majority of the puny "PC" market.  Put down the alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also used your claim that IBM had the majority of the market they  never had to argue that they split off Microsoft/Windows in order to avoid being  broken up like Ma Bell. There are two minor problems with that claim.
> 
> IBM never had a majority of the market because their PCs were overpriced and easy to copy, hence the abundance of PC clones that flooded the market. FYI, at one time, Radio Shack was actually a major player in the PC market.
> 
> The second major problem with that is they never owned Microsoft/Windows.
Click to expand...

Lies. I never said a single thing you say I said.  Are you entirely incapable of discussion without making up lies in every single sentence?

IBM created the IBM PC market to stave off the feds.  The market share I was talking about was for the total computing market, not the PC market which at the time was minuscule.   The open standard for the IBM PCs, Microsoft as the OS company, and Intel as the CPU company were chosen to stave off the government splitting IBM up.  IBM PCs were easy to copy because IBM published how to copy it, and assisted the other manufacturers in doing so.  I'm fully aware that Radio Shack, Commodore, heath kit, and a plethora of others used to sell PC that were based on other architectures.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty, as one person interprets it, can indeed include the ability to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.  No.  Liberty is not open for interpretation.
> 
> Look at rioters who believe they are being virtuous when they destroy property, threaten or assault people, become violent etc. because in their view they are supporting or promoting some virtuous concept or protesting some vile principle or act.  No.  Those things are not virtuous, they are the opposite of virtuous. While your violent acts on others may satiate your desire for revenge, these are not virtuous acts. Defensible perhaps but not virtuous.
> 
> Many interpret liberty as forbidding a person from consuming addictive drugs or alcohol or from engaging in gambling or prostitution because in their view, they are righteous and noble to save another person from his own destructive choices.  No. That's not liberty that's authority. Again you appear to be deflecting for authoritarian desires to take away liberty. Authority to take away liberty is not liberty.
> 
> The politically correct police applauded protests and pickets and petitions to punish Chick-fil-a or Duck Dynasty star or a others for a politically incorrect point of view, etc.And it would be their liberty to do so.
> 
> All these can and have been promoted as concepts of 'liberty', even believing the Constitution protects and condones such activities.
> 
> The 'liberty' to force others to conform to what is good, and right, and virtuous.  No. No. No.  Liberty is not liberty to force.  That is a gross distortion used by authoritarians to take liberty away.  You are justifying your means based on your desire to reach some end that you believe to be good.
> 
> This goes far beyond society choosing to prevent or punish those who violate the unalienable rights- of others; i.e. arresting and/or incarcerating thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.
> 
> That  is NOT the liberty embodied in unalienable/natural/God given rights as the Founders saw that, however.  True liberty allows somebody to be good or bad, virtuous or immoral, religious or non religious,  tolerant of all or bigoted or racist or some other -ist, just so long as that is not forced upon any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your definition of True liberty and use of the term is just more deflection for the authoritarians who justify their use of force as a means to an end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I would put my definition of liberty up against yours for consideration by any responsible panel to judge since I in no way justified authoritarianism in any sense other than government securing our rights.  But oh well. . . carry on.  Not that you wouldn't anyway.
Click to expand...


Giving away our liberty to secure some measure of security.  Where have I heard that before?


----------



## RKMBrown

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.


Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sorry for the length of this post, but it, along with the links provided, sums up everything I've argued in one place, answers your concerns, accordingly, long the way, ties up a few loose ends, and encapsulates all of the fundamental principles and themes of natural law. *



gnarlylove said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate the distinction you're making between universal qualities and inherent qualities, and especially your insight regarding the essence of natural law in accordance with the Anglo-American tradition--that's refreshing!--the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision would necessarily be inherently hardwired in order to _be_ universal.  In other words, its interesting that you grasp the fact that the mutual obligations of morality are the essence of natural law in the history of its exegesis, though you hold the latter to be a mere corollary in some sense:  in nature, I don't know of any universal quality in any given category of thing that isn't also inherent in that category of thing.
> 
> Besides, the reason that all humans know that its wrong to murder or to oppress or to steal from others is because they would not have anyone do these things to them.  Hence, everyone knows where their rights end and the rights of others begin.  Even the sociopath/psychopath knows this.  He just doesn't care, as one who's bereft of moral shame and empathy, until these things are perpetrated on him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. It forces me to clarify my own position in a meaningful way and that rarely happens on here. Many thanks.
> 
> My reply is that I'm not saying human beings don't have these hard wired. I've said indeed there is a biological component that pervades all culture. You can call it the golden rule but we don't really know much about this topic; though good work has been done by John Mikhail on this subject.
Click to expand...


But when you say that _we_ don't know much about the topic, you mean that science has just scratched the surface of a very complex matter.  God's word tells us the _whole_ story and divulges the fact that we are created in His image.  

Now bear with me.  For we need not debate the actualities of the transcendent realm of being to which the immanent realm of being is contingent, as one need not appeal to the existence of God, for example, in order to immediately demonstrate the actuality of natural rights, their character or the fact that they are absolute and inherently universal.  That the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are absolute and universal is self-evident, and it is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law proper on which this was nation founded:  the classical liberalism extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianitys *ethical* system of thought. 

*(See link:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.)*

Those who pooh-pooh the observation that America was ultimately founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity simply don't know the history of the development of natural law proper.  The tradition of natural law of this nation's founding begins in earnest with Augustine of the Third Century, though it's adumbrations may be traced back to the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century.  As handed down to us, its culmination is that which is propounded, principally, by Locke in his _Two Treatises of Civil Government_ and by Sidney in his _Discourses Concerning Government_ in which the ontological justification for natural law proper is predicated on the biblical imperatives concerning the ultimate Origin of natural morality and rights, and those of human conduct and human interaction.

(Never forget, however, that the imperatives of natural morality and natural rights have been recognized and expressed since the dawn of man, albeit, under variously different terms:  the stuff of mere semantics, not the stuff of any ontological difference.  Given the fact that the substance of these motifs is absolute and universal, this shouldnt surprise anybody.)

Some think to make much ado over nothing, really, by pointing out that many of the Founders were Deists, followed by the non sequitur of historical ignorance that America, therefore, was not founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity.  On the other hand, others carelessly claim with no caveat anywhere in sight that America is a Christian nation, which may be construed to mean something that is false.  The sense in which America is a Christian nation goes to the sociopolitical principles of its founding ethos and to the pertinent concerns of liberty exerted against its government.  These principles are ultimately derived from scripture; and in accordance with God's perfect will, scripture eschews the supposed divine right of kings and theocracy, as the trappings of such invariably conspire against the exigencies of free will and those of the proper relationship between God and man, or, if you prefer, between the convictions of one's conscience and the behavioral expressions thereof, relative to the prerogatives of free-association and private property as informed by the construct of individual liberty, not by any construct asserted by collectivists. 

Hence, we have the essential powers of governmentexecutive, legislative, judicialdistinguished by Augustine, separated via a system of checks and balances by Montesquieu, explicitly limited via the terms of the social contract by Locke, Sidney and others.  The latter also entails the necessity of separating church and state, and the peoples' inalienable right of revolt in order to put down the despotic trappings of monarchy and/or theocracy in whatever guise they may persist or arise.  Those who claim that the principle of the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution are mistaken.  It most certainly is.  What they're reacting to is the Jacobins'/Marxists' (that old society of friends and fellow travelers of the "progressive" way) bastardized application of it in case law.

*(For example, the leftist Warren Court intentionally turned the principle on its head, effectively making the public education system the state's "church" and making secular humanism it's "religion."  See link:  Prufrock's Lair: Revisions and Divisions.)*

Aside from the affirmation that God (or _the Creator_ in the Declaration of Independence), not the State, is the ultimate Origin and Guarantor of human rights, the sociopolitical principles on which this nation was founded have nothing to do with the mystical aspects of Judeo-Christianity's theology, but with the sociopolitical ramifications of its moral teachings, which both the Christian and the Deist of the time embraced.  Hence, so much for the red herring routinely asserted by atheists, in particular, and leftists, in general.

Now, the reason I expound the historical and ideological background of our nation's founding here, as I anticipate the typical objections of ignorance, is to illustrate the reason one must always bear in mind _Who_ the ultimate Benefactor of our natural rights _is_ while demonstrating the cogency of their rational and empirical proofs from nature, sweep away the irrelevancies argued by some that obscure the actualities of the matter, and demonstrate the actual nature of certain, remedial prescriptions that would  treat imaginary problems to no avail, but _would_ undermine liberty.


You continue: 



> So I have no trouble saying these rights exist just like flesh does on our face. But they do not exist outside of our species. The point of this code or natural rights being a portion of biology shows that these rights depend on fundamental recognition of each other as the same and that cannot be done easily without a brain, particularly a human brain. *[1] It doesn't ensure we act on them but it sure plays a role. [2] Hence, to say lions afford other lions rights is not intelligible because lions do not have such cognitive capacities.* Only when the human brain arrives on the scene do we see natural rights taking form.



Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with these observations.  However, a couple of points:

*(1)* While the fact of the inherent, universal imperatives of natural morality by themselves do not ensure our obeisance due to the exigencies of free will, the person who fails to act on them will not escape the natural repercussions of violating them as they act on _him_.  We have all violated them and felt the sting.  Those of us who aren't sociopaths/psychopaths care a great deal about these repercussions or should, for the sake of our own best interests . . . with an empathetic heart for the interests of others.

The imperatives of natural law regarding human conduct and human interaction are God's system of checks and balances woven into the fabric of nature.  Ultimately, they are the essence of the defensive counterforce exerted by God against the violations of _His_ inherent rights and the prerogatives of _His_ authority.   Whether you believe it to be true or not, violate another's rights and you have violated God's property.  Bear in mind that there are rewards to be reaped by those who observe them, too.

*(2)*  And that's why the historically significant proponents of natural law do not formally equate natural rights to mere abilities or talk about the supposed evidence of them in terms of ability.  Instead, they are understood to be, respectively, the inherent or natural attributes of sentient beings, as only sentient beings can apprehend them or grant rights of any kind.  Humans, for example can and do grant rights; albeit, these are not the natural rights of man, obviously, but the abstract, political rights or the civil rights/protections administered by government.  These are the theoretical, social constructs of political science that the relativists on this thread incessantly harp about.

The corollary here is that humans beings should not grant rights to mere animals, as such foolishness undermines the liberty of human beings.  Animals are recourses or property.  

On the other hand, the civil liberties of the Bill of Rights are the inalienable natural rights of man asserted by the people against the government as translated from the state of nature into the conventions of the state of civil government, and, by the way, the fundamental political rights of the franchise and representation, for example, are the practical means by which the unabrigable civil liberties are peacefully maintained relative to the mutual bonds of the social contract.  These are of the first order.  The other civil rights/protections are nonessential privileges, though beneficial insofar as they are reasonable. 


Again:



> So these natural rights are universal among the human species and do not exist outside the human species. *[1] Thus, if we died, so does natural rights as we present them. I guess this was the gist of my "they aren't intrinsic" bit.* I don't know if this contradicts or supports your belief but it seems axiomatic, really, once we understand natural rights for what they are. A highly useful description in our current age, even a "true" description, *[2] but one that does not extend beyond the human species or into the metaphysical realm we so often wish to ascribe such rights and "truths."*



*(1)*  Well, yes, as we present them in natural terms, that's true.  However, they are spiritually intrinsic as well.  But let's concentrate on the level of their being on which we agree, though my approach in this instance may at first blush seem to be counterintuitive to that goal. 

Here I wish to further underscore the importance of bearing in mind the Persons by Whom they are ultimately endowed while illustrating their actuality in nature.  Given the incontrovertible fact that they are universally inherent to the nature of sentient beings, the fundamental, innate rights of man, obviously, are not derived from government, but neither can they be transferred to another _nor_ even taken by another as some have suggested.  They are _that_ absolute.

For this reason, I consistently express their actuality in terms of the mutual obligations of morality with the dichotomic correlates of _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_ and _initial force-defensive force_ in mind.  (Some may recognize these correlates as expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in some rhetorical flourish or another, but they do not originate with him.)  Hence, natural rights are _not_ inalienable in the sense that they _cannot_ (ability) be violated or suppressed; they're inalienable in the sense that they _may not_ (consent) be violated or suppressed without dire consequences, including the use of deadly counterforce.  This rendering of the matter entails the understanding that they cannot be transferred to another or taken by another.

As I have observed in other posts, discussing natural rights in terms of ability implies that they are subject to being negated by the whims of other natural agents.  But there exists only one Agent Who can terminate them, the same Agent Who endowed them in the first place.  Further, given that God is the Author of natural law and the God of nature, given that He is the ultimate Source and Guarantor of human rights:  even equating rights to the seemingly benign abilities of thought and expression is foolhardy, for innate rights cease to be rights of any kind at the point where one's rights end and another's rights begin.  While one can never violate the natural rights of another human being and, only under relatively rare circumstances, the civil rights of another human being with mere thoughts or expressions, one may quite readily violate the inherent rights of God with one's thoughts and expressions.  We humans do it all the time.  

*(2)* We are not alone, and just as the sentient creatures of nature precede and command the trappings of government, wisely or unwisely, God precedes and commands the very existence of nature itself, which is utterly contingent to His power and authority.  A human being, or, for that matter, any natural entity, sentient or inanimate, may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that does not transfer my rights to another.  A natural entity may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that takes neither my life nor my rights away.  Ultimately, I'm an eternal being comprised of a spiritual substance.  My life and my rights stay with me wherever I go.  

No human being in the natural realm can kill my body, physically oppress me or steal my property, except God allow it; and should He allow it, now argued strictly in the terms of nature as promised, my life is not transferred to another, my basic liberties (commonly, though informally in all but the constitutional language of civil liberties, referred to as _the freedom of religion/ideology_, _the freedom of expression_ and _the freedom of movement_, which are _not_ freedoms proper, but the inherently fundamental attributes/liberties of sentient beings) remain intact via my rational faculties, and the nonnegotiable asset of my property is me, my own self.

None of the natural rights of man are derived from government; they cannot be transferred to another or taken away by another.

*(The Explicit Natural Rights of Man:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367.)*

As for criminals, killed or incarcerated for perpetrating serious transgressions against an individual or the body politic, their just due is exacted on them via the defensive counterforce of the same, respectively.  But as I've shown, even that does not extinguish their natural rights, though it does severely limit their expression.  Also, in many states, they may never be able to keep and bear arms again, which is merely a continuation of the same instance of justice meted out as a result of their violation(s) of natural law.  Repercussions.  But no one ever loses one's right of self-defense.  

In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or the legitimate political/civil rights of others.


Again:



> Many harp on natural rights as the only way to discuss relations between human beings but it's fundamentally skewed, forgoing other important relations, namely our responsibilities if we are to maintain a decent planet and society. I see "rights" being used for ill as often as good. *[1] Moreover I hardly consider rights as important to my understanding of ethics and morality because they come from aligning yourself with self-evident and intuitive principles--one need not understand the concept natural rights in order to do this--and the doing is the only important part.* Rights are abstractions of action and are thus subject to misconstrual or worse, misapplication. *[2] I don't advocate the getting rid of natural rights but we certainly need to expand it to make sense: to include economic rights.*



*(1)* But one need not be a scholar of natural law in order to understand its fundamental realities:  everybody knows it's wrong to murder another, to oppress another or to steal from another, if for no other reason but the fact that nobody would that anybody else do any of these things to them.  There's nothing especially abstract about that, and the only sense in which natural rights are significantly abstract goes to their expression.  Sure.  But the expression of these rights is effortless for a sentient being, for the essence of their expression goes to what a sentient being is and what a sentient being does by its very nature.  

*(2)* Now, finally, your thought regarding economic rights and the like:  what you're asserting constitutes the violation of natural rights.  

Marxist Sociopolitical and Economic Theory 101.  

We already have more than enough of that going on right nowthank you very much, but no thank youand the crony capitalism thereof is strangling the life blood out of small business interests and the working poor, just for starters. . . . 

What your prescribing is the very cause of the ills and depredations you're complaining about, including your concerns about the environment.  Repercussions.  In fact, what you're prescribing is a futile attempt to ameliorate the deprivations caused by the very samea vicious cycle of envy, avarice, fear, theft, sloth, dependency . . . ad nauseam; links in the growing chain of the tyranny that binds us, forged by the peoples' lack of self-control and self-provision. See my signature.  The endless parade of bread and circuses . . . well, until the money runs out.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, a.k.a., spiraling spending and debt.  Wealth redistribution, which only serves to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, as it effects an overall decline in the wealth of the nation as a whole.  Not at all what progressives predict according to the zero-sum gain fantasy.  _Lose_ is the word of the day!



> After labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and after all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantlyonly then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed out in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Karl Marx



Yeehaw!

The former Soviet Union, the communist Republic of China under Moa, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under that line of congenital psychopaths, Cuba under Castro (Isn't he dead yet?), Venezuela under Chavez. . . .

Here's my motto for Marx:  From thieves according to their sins, to each according to his sweat.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if rights aren't protected, even if they're never violated, they don't exist? I guess I'm thinking of a scenario where people voluntarily respect each others rights - without any government involvement. Honestly, this describes the status quo in most communities, most of the time. That doesn't count?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't exist because nature doesn't concern itself with rights. Rights are conferred, imposed, bestowed,granted etc . There is no authority to do this act unless one is willing to concede that there is a higher power. I suspect that's the part of the agenda here anyway. Are humans guaranteed to be treated a certain way if there is no God or Government ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.
Click to expand...


Life is not a right. It is a miracle of nature.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't exist because nature doesn't concern itself with rights. Rights are conferred, imposed, bestowed,granted etc . There is no authority to do this act unless one is willing to concede that there is a higher power. I suspect that's the part of the agenda here anyway. Are humans guaranteed to be treated a certain way if there is no God or Government ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life is not a right. Someone can kill you.
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not a right. Someone can kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...


And governments dont give birth to humans.


----------



## gnarlylove

dilloduck said:


> Attributing some good stroke of luck that happens to you in the present to something  good that you did in the past is fantasy. A coincidence that people love to give significance to.



Karma may be true but humans do not have the cognitive capacity to produce sufficient evidence for rational belief in karma. So I stand by the assertion and logical premise that karma is magic/supernatural in the sense that it may be true we just don't have sufficient evidence like we do with natural selection.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> poppycock---humans are animals----we do what we do regardless of any so called rights involved. You are simply trying to re label human behavior to suit your purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Human beings can do whatever they please insofar as the thing they please to do is within their power to do it, and, yes, human beings may do any such thing in spite of  the existence of any rights.  Human beings do that all the time, mostly due to ignorance or fear.  We do what we do by nature.  We do what we are by nature.  Natural law doesn't deny any of these things in the above.  These are the very things that it asserts.
> 
> So, why do you say _poppycock_?
> 
> Do  you believe the above or not?
> 
> What is this about my purpose?  What is my purpose according to you?  Your knowledge regarding my alleged purpose is not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry--didn't mean to accuse you personally. I'm merely assuming that is what the agenda is in trying to take the next step and call what occurs naturally a " right". Rights are similar to licenses or permission slips. Someone gives them to you. In nature there is no need to have the right to do anything.
Click to expand...


Actually, a handful of us have addressed the matter from top to bottom.  No need to move on to anything new.  It's all been said and done already.   In the above you alleged that natural law and the obvious realities of things were incongruent.  How's that?  We're talking about *natural law*, not civil law.  The latter is the stuff of rights akin to licenses and such.

Natural rights are.  Period.  Correct.  You don't have to do anything to have them, but be born.  They are the stuff of the inherent attributes and subsequent expressions of sentient beings.  They are nothing less than that or anything other than that.  The rest is semantics.  That's why there's no such thing as a permission slip, as it were, to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.


----------



## M14 Shooter

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.


----------



## RKMBrown

M14 Shooter said:


> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.





> *THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added*: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> Amendment I
> 
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.

Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech.  (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)


----------



## dcraelin

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the idea of government existed _before_ the actuality of government existed?
> _Where_ did the idea of government exist before?
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So _family_ or_ tribe _aren't ideas about something?
Click to expand...


didnt say they weren't but I dont get your point 



dilloduck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the idea of government existed _before_ the actuality of government existed?
> _Where_ did the idea of government exist before?
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty much----the first alternative to beating the shit out of each other to get what we wanted/needed.
Click to expand...


kind of a negative way of putting it but ....basically


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.



You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a theoretical way.
> 
> IN reality?  of course not.
> 
> I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this _reality_ in which they don't exist?  Would you define it?  In other words, what do you mean by _reality_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what he's talking about it and neither do you.

Reality encompasses the _Subject-Object_ dichotomy.  But don't worry about that, just understand the following.

Ideas in the minds of sentient beings _do_ in fact exist.  They are real.

The concern regarding ontological actuality, however, goes to those things that can and do exist in both the rational realm of being and the empirical realm of being.

*Natural* law and *natural* rights pertain to that which exists in both realms; therefore, they are actual.

Quantum and I and others have already proven that.

Natural rights precede government, are not derived from government, cannot be transferred to another or even taken away by another. 

*Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*

The rest is the mere semantics of rationally and emotionally immature minds whose thought processes verge on the edge of psychopathy:  persons who understand the boundaries of permitted behavior, i.e., the point at which their innate rights end and where those of others' begin, the essence of natural law and innate rights, but only in terms of the positive and negative consequences of human interaction derived from experience, observation.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this _reality_ in which they don't exist?  Would you define it?  In other words, what do you mean by _reality_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what he's talking about it and neither do you.
> 
> Reality encompasses the _Subject-Object_ dichotomy.  But don't worry about that, just understand the following.
> 
> Ideas in the minds of sentient beings _do_ in fact exist.  They are real.
> 
> The concern regarding ontological actuality, however, goes to those things that can and do exist in both the rational realm of being and the empirical realm of being.
> 
> *Natural* law and *natural* rights pertain to that which exists in both realms; therefore, they are actual.
> 
> Quantum and I and others have already proven that.
> 
> Natural rights precede government, are not derived from government, cannot be transferred to another or even taken away by another.
> 
> *Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> 
> The rest is the mere semantics of rationally and emotionally immature minds whose thought processes verge on the edge of psychopathy:  persons who understand the boundaries of permitted behavior, i.e., the point at which their innate rights end and where those of others' begin, the essence of natural law and innate rights, but only in terms of the positive and negative consequences of human interaction derived from experience, observation.
Click to expand...


So the idea that there are no natural rights also is real. Why don't you just enumerate a few of the so called natural rights that you speak of. I noticed you already declined to name an inalienable right ( unless I just missed it and then I apologize.

Or name an innate right---that would be cool too


----------



## gnarlylove

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sorry for the length of this post, but it, along with the links provided, sums up everything I've argued in one place, answers your concerns, accordingly, long the way, ties up a few loose ends, and encapsulates all of the fundamental principles and themes of natural law. *



I appreciate the review. Sadly I had a better more organized reply but was deleted by a single keystroke that closed the page. I wonder why that always happens.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> the immanent realm of being is contingent...the fact that they are absolute and inherently universal.  That the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are absolute and universal is self-evident



It is not self-evident by any means. Contingency implies relativism. Conditional circumstances imply the subjective. There is no reason to think human animals have access to absolute capacities. By our very nature we are subject in time and space. Therefore we cannot make declarations that transcend time and space with any meaning or weight.

However, universality has definite meaning. When we find certain actions or moral behaviors transcend culture and geography, then we call it universal. This is by no means absolute. It seems like you're using them interchangeably and I want to appeal to your sensible nature by ceasing such a faux-pas. William Lane Craig is a sharp defender of this essential demarcation. Although it seems semantical, words have meanings and we need to stick to them in argumentative prose.





M.D. Rawlings said:


> and it is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law proper on which this was nation founded:  the classical liberalism extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity&#8217;s *ethical* system of thought....
> 
> As handed down to us, its culmination is that which is propounded, principally, by Locke in his _Two Treatises of Civil Government_ and by Sidney in his _Discourses Concerning Government_ in which the ontological justification for natural law proper is predicated on the biblical imperatives concerning the ultimate Origin of natural morality and rights, and those of human conduct and human interaction.



I know Locke very well and am holding that book you reference. But your argument what is (Locke's principles) is what should be is another faux pas. It's technically the normative fallacy. You are offering a description of what is. But there's no good reason to think what is at any particular time is what should be prescribed.

I imagine you are convinced the Christian message is absolute truth and since the US is supposedly founded on these principles, you find this sufficient reason for why they should be. But let me turn your attention to thinks you don't know about Locke and American government.

Locke's concept of private property was taken to logical conclusions in Westward Expansion. Read the following and see if Jesus would agree with private property and its outworking. The Native Americans who had no title or deed to the land, so the colonists swept the land with fierce devastation--all the while claiming to be fulfilling God's purpose with moral fervor.

Alexis de Tocqueville recounts how the US violated no moral principle in genocide of the Indian Persons: "Americans have accomplished this twofold purpose [Native American extermination] ...legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity." I ask you, how is it possible to be doing God's purpose under such inherently immoral acts? Jesus insisted to never resort to violence--as do all spiritual teachings--and rightly so! It doesn't mean violence is never an option but the onus is on the one wielding violence. In this case, the justification was legal etc. which is just absurd given the consequences.

Ayn Rand was famous for excusing cultural and human extermination on the basis that natives have no papers saying they own it. What brutish logic. Do you think it makes sense to deprive people of life and access to streams or land because of the concept of private property? Do you think private property is just "how the world is?" Does drawing up a document with your name on it claiming you own something all of a sudden make it yours? Maybe if you took it with you beyond the grave I'd consider it yours but it's just a tactic, private property is, to use legalisms against natives and the poor landless peasants.


In "The Reasonableness of Christianity" he wrote that "the day labourers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairy maids" must be told what to think. "The greatest part cannot know, and therefore they must believe."  Is this Democracy? By any genuine definition of Democracy, one must be free to make up their minds and have their own free voice heard.

Moreover, ask yourself: does America give the poor a chance to be heard regarding their plight? Say of needing benefits extended or not slashing welfare? Who decides this? It's done by rich elites, literally congress has become full of millionaires. They will continue to vote for their interests and the correlation between the bottom 1/3 of the population is negative or harmful to how congress votes and this is academically reported. See Noam Chomsky for the reference.

Plus many people contemporaneous with Locke, like Hume has rightfully argued against Locke's positions from many angles. Plus Locke thought we had a _tabula rasa_ which is been shown to be entirely false in the area of linguistics, biology and language acquisition.

So I'd argue Jesus would vehemently oppose private property because it clearly is used against the poor to keep them poor. Did Jesus say aim to be rich? No. He lived among the poor and healed the sick. Most declared Christians don't behave at all like Christ. It's trully appalling and I know this profoundly having been one.




M.D. Rawlings said:


> The corollary here is that humans beings should not grant rights to mere animals, as such foolishness undermines the liberty of human beings.  Animals are recourses or property.



Is this what the Bible means when it says "be good stewards of creation" and to slaughter billions of animals that "chew the cud"? As a sensible Christian, one cannot condone such acts towards holy creation. To an extend survival is necessary, but we've set up a world have commodifies life and sells and buys it like it's an object--not holy. Animals are endowed with the same right to life as human beings.

In biology, we have this:

John Taylor Bonner, a famous biologist, wrote,
While we readily admit that the first organisms were bacteria-like and that the most complex organism of all is our own kind, it is considered bad form to take this as any kind of progression...[One] is flirting with sin if one says a worm is a lower animal and a vertebrate is a higher animal, even though there fossil origins will be found in lower and higher strata.

A beautiful quote denoting the problem of humanity: the ego. By thinking one is special, one affirms an exceptional status to take what they want however they can, often without concern for anything but the self. This meme of only concerning ourselves with our self has created a ruinous cultural virus and fragmented us from others, ecology, and reality. We must replace our egocentric understanding with a empathetic or altruistic approach if we wish to better society and our own lives.

We shouldn't expect to live a good life if we mainly concern ourselves with our wants and needs. Though humanity may operate based on privilege and greed, the subtle essence of the universe does not. Just as it says in the Bible, "God is no respector of persons," meaning God is equally concerned with everyone, no one stands above the rest.





M.D. Rawlings said:


> None of the natural rights of man are derived from government; they cannot be transferred to another or taken away by another.
> But no one ever loses one's right of self-defense.
> 
> In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or the legitimate political/civil rights of others.



You are no longer making sense. The right to self-defense is absolutely deprived in isolation chambers and prison, jail, handcuffs, poverty etc. One cannot combat the US government, otherwise they are defined as a terrorist and detained without trial and this obviously means they have no self-defense, or some are just killed without warning, some are American citizens under the NDAA (National Defense AA)

You have a very privileged understanding that has never mingled among the poor. I grew up in a low income family but was sheltered from greater reaches of poverty. Then I lived homelessly, as I had no other options, and really came to see what it means. You waxing eloquently on poverty is an utter mystery when you have no idea what American law is about: it advantages the rich, doesn't enforce laws on whites like drugs laws, and always prosecutes the poor, defenseless and supposedly "non-productive" classes. But why are those people not-productive in the first place? Because they have few if any opportunities out of poverty--simply put there are not enough jobs for enough human beings in America. Our manufacturing base has disappeared. They are plenty of fees on being poor that maintains poverty and keeps the workforce insecure: meaning workers don't know if they will have a job the next day and are easily replaced by eager unemployed. Thus they won't ask for better wages, benefits, better conditions etc. and in economic terms this is better, according to Allan Greenspan in the 90s.

Do you think this is Christian? To keep people in their place as our society does? Christianity can be a great tool for spiritual englightenment and was for me but to view it as the absolute truth is scary and gives you the right to terminate other people. Clearly because you think the principles that guided this country up to the present have been tolerable. I say they are the most vile deeds done in history and they were justified on the basis of Christian morals.

But there is a difference between what Christianity actually teaches and how people like you and others understand Christianity in the broader context of society and the world. Furthermore, there is a larger gap between what Christians claim and what Christians do, as with all people. But spritiaul paths are intended to sync these up and having moved away from Christianity and hedonism, both symptoms of the ego, I've been able to find myself much more aware of my actions aligning with morals. It's amazing how taking the ego out of the picture puts Christ or rather, Life or the subtle essence of the universe on center stage and with that being the case, one is able to act in total accord with Christ or the subtle essence of the universe. But it takes work and practice. It isn't easy to stop focusing on the I and the ego and your subjective thoughts. But is worth coming to know and do.

But I dug out my old papers and have a few more thoughts on absolute capacities of human beings that might help convince you further that your position is false.

Rorty says &#8220;that the world is out there&#8230;is to say&#8230;that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do no include human mental states&#8221; (Contingency, 5). The assumption that pesters postmodernists is that our feeble minds grasp&#8212;through language&#8212;the way the world really is. Rorty sums up this concern by saying &#8220;Truth&#8230;cannot exist independently of the human mind&#8212;because sentences cannot so exist&#8230;&#8221; (Contingency, 5). Concepts like absolute morality or justice fit in this category too. They supposedly sans time and are waiting to be discovered by humans. The Truth is &#8220;out there in other words.

To say that we should drop the idea of Truth as out there waiting to be discovered is not to say that we have discovered that, out there, there is no Truth. It is to say that our purposes would be served best by ceasing to see Truth as a deep matter, as a topic of philosophical interest, or &#8220;true&#8221; as a term which repays &#8220;analysis.&#8221; &#8220;The nature of Truth&#8221; is an unprofitable topic, resembling in this respect &#8220;the nature of man&#8221; and &#8220;the nature of God&#8221;&#8230;. But this claim about relative profitability, in turn, is just the recommendation that we in fact say little about these topics, and see how we get on (Contingency, 8).

If you want to discuss absolutes more, I have a very persuasive paper on the matter. Let me wrap up by saying in Contingency, Rorty notes in a footnote that Nietzsche quips that &#8220;&#8216;what we call &#8216;Truths&#8217; are just useful lies.&#8217;&#8221; Derrida engages similarly in saying &#8220;&#8216;what we call &#8216;real&#8217; is not really real.&#8217;&#8221; He says they are &#8220;liable to chares of self-referential inconsistency (Contingency, 8).

Lastly, Foucault also thinks &#8220;Truth isn&#8217;t outside of power&#8221; (Truth and Power interview). I take that to mean Truth is defined by rulers for their benefit. Indeed, the world operates without any checks and balances to keep those underrepresented represented. The rulers are not chosen based on who is the best for the world&#8212;they are chosen by their persuasive capacities. Rhetoric and manipulation is all there is to it. Truth is just a grand cover-up of the fact manipulation is it; rulers use Truth to get us to think there is a reason beyond us, beyond her, to believe or behave a certain way. Even that statement is manipulation in an attempt to persuade you. Whoever is in power, as Foucault knows, can make any system, including a life-destroying one. So within society we get the desire of the ruler. This is encouragement to make our desire the reigning one.

Therefore there is not evidence that human language has achieved absolute declarations of Truth. Our truth is a lower case t that does not sans time and space but is rooted in subjective locals and subjective universals. To say anything more is to go beyond one's sensibility.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.
Click to expand...


Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically.  A risibly stupid claim.   

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.  

OP?  I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.   

*No.  Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
Click to expand...


*Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## dilloduck

> Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.



M.D. Rawlings

This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not a right. Someone can kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And governments dont give birth to humans.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life.  If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue. 

So far, you have excelled at the latter.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added*: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> Amendment I
> 
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.
> 
> Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech.  (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)
Click to expand...

Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
Click to expand...


It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1​


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And governments dont give birth to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life.  If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.
> 
> So far, you have excelled at the latter.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.


----------



## Asclepias

I'd have to disagree with you M.D. Rawlings.  You cant point out an inalienable right without saying that man designated it to be one.  You dont have a right to life, liberty, or property without some type of government giving you that right. The fact they can all be taken away is proof they can be given. Inalienable means you cant give or take it.  Rights are defined as a license given to you by a government.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And governments dont give birth to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life.*  If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.
> 
> So far, you have excelled at the latter.
Click to expand...


Did you read what you just wrote?  I bolded it for you so you cant miss it this time.  The fact that they said its a right makes it so. The Supreme Court is a branch of the government. The judicial branch to be exact.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted...
Click to expand...


Yes.  You do.
For the government to give you something, the mechanism thru which it does so must be written down somewhere within its body of law.
If you believe that the government gave you the right to free speech then you must be able to cite the text that does so.



> but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.


The text of the 1st clearly protects the right to free speech that pre-exists the creration of the 1st amendment, and so just as clearly does not grant said right to free speech


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1​
Click to expand...


That's not granting a right. It's prohibiting government from interfering in a behavior that a citizen just up and did with no one's permission at all.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life *and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.*


The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.
Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not a right. It is a miracle of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A miracle is, by definition, is not natural.
> 
> That said, how does the fact that life is miraculous  prove that it is not a right? Especially when I can point to the fact that the Constitution says it is?
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court is who you wanna ask. They have determined that a fetus does not have that right.


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  You do.
> For the government to give you something, the mechanism thru which it does so must be written down somewhere within its body of law.
> If you believe that the government gave you the right to free speech then you must be able to cite the text that does so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The text of the 1st clearly protects the right to free speech that pre-exists the creration of the 1st amendment, and so just as clearly does not grant said right to free speech
Click to expand...


No it doesn't have to be written.  Look up the word granted.  You dont have a pre-existing right to free speech. Political prisoners the world over will explain this to you in detail. What other text do you need to have cited other than the first amendment?  Its an inference that the right is there by virtue of the amendment protecting it.  That doesn't mean that it pre-existed. That only proves it is one of the many beliefs that could have been debated in drawing up the document.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1​
Click to expand...


Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> And governments dont give birth to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life.  If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.
> 
> So far, you have excelled at the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.
Click to expand...


I am sure you think you have a point. The poster I responded to tried to argue that there is no right to life. this was not a qualified statement, it was an absolute, so I refuted it. If I ever argued that there is no death penalty, feel free to point out that the Supreme Court says it exist to prove me wrong.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life *and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.
> Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
Click to expand...


So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> I'd have to disagree with you M.D. Rawlings.  You cant point out an inalienable right without saying that man designated it to be one.  You dont have a right to life, liberty, or property without some type of government giving you that right. The fact they can all be taken away is proof they can be given. Inalienable means you cant give or take it.  Rights are defined as a license given to you by a government.



Like I said, show me one example of any government giving anyone the right to life. If you can't find one, feel free to show me an example of everyone spontaneously dying because the government no longer exists.


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added*: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> Amendment I
> 
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.
> 
> Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech.  (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.
Click to expand...


Disagree.  Its not necessary for a right to pre exist.  You may think and or agree that right is pre-existing but how would you prove that? Remember we are dealing with humans like you and me with opinions not all knowing gods.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> And governments dont give birth to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life.*  If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.
> 
> So far, you have excelled at the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what you just wrote?  I bolded it for you so you cant miss it this time.  The fact that they said its a right makes it so. The Supreme Court is a branch of the government. The judicial branch to be exact.
Click to expand...


Did you read what you just said? You are the one that claimed there is no right to life, not me, now you are arguing that the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it exists, which I pointed out, proves you right. 

Want to explain that to all the people that don't live in a world where aliens built the pyramids?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  You do.
> For the government to give you something, the mechanism thru which it does so must be written down somewhere within its body of law.
> If you believe that the government gave you the right to free speech then you must be able to cite the text that does so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The text of the 1st clearly protects the right to free speech that pre-exists the creration of the 1st amendment, and so just as clearly does not grant said right to free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't have to be written.
Click to expand...

It does, expecially if you want to argue that you are being given something that would not otherwise have.   There *must *be a legal mechanism for a grantof anything by the government; you know you can find no such things and so will choose to be wrong in tis regard as you know its the only leg you have to stand on.




> Look up the word granted.


Yes, expecially in contrast to the word "protected".
The language 1st amendmnet potects, not grants, the right to free speech.



> You dont have a pre-existing right to free speech


You have thus far been unable to prove any such thing, especially in your inability to cite any sort of text that grants it.



> Political prisoners the world over will explain this to you in detail


So?  All this means is their government has legally taken that right away, or refused to protect it.  Either way, it does not prove that the right does not exist absent a grat by the government,



> What other text do you need to have cited other than the first amendment?  Its an inference that the right is there by virtue of the amendment protecting it.


As noted above, compare and contrast the definitions of "grant" and "protect".
In doing so, you will see that you are wrong.



> That doesn't mean that it pre-existed.


Given that the language protects, not grants the right, the right must already exist in order for it to be protected - thus, it necessaroly pre-exists the 1st amendment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not granting a right. It's prohibiting government from interfering in a behavior that a citizen just up and did with no one's permission at all.
Click to expand...


That was my point, genius. Perhaps you should consider arguing with the guy that said that the 1st Amendment is proof that the government grants rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life *and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.
> Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

Under certain circumstances, any and every right may be taken away.
I thought everyone knew this.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree with you M.D. Rawlings.  You cant point out an inalienable right without saying that man designated it to be one.  You dont have a right to life, liberty, or property without some type of government giving you that right. The fact they can all be taken away is proof they can be given. Inalienable means you cant give or take it.  Rights are defined as a license given to you by a government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, show me one example of any government giving anyone the right to life. If you can't find one, feel free to show me an example of everyone spontaneously dying because the government no longer exists.
Click to expand...


Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter.  They transgressed on another persons given right to life.  Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not a right. It is a miracle of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A miracle is, by definition, is not natural.
> 
> That said, how does the fact that life is miraculous  prove that it is not a right? Especially when I can point to the fact that the Constitution says it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is who you wanna ask. They have determined that a fetus does not have that right.
Click to expand...


They actually didn't. What they said is that the government does not have the power to interfere with the right of a woman to consult with a doctor about health issues. 

Funny how they changed their tune on that, isn't it?


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.
> Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
> 
> 
> 
> So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under certain circumstances, any and every right may be taken away.
> I thought everyone knew this.
Click to expand...


Thats because they are right and not inalienable.  The 2 terms together actually are an oxymoron unless someone can provide an example of a right that cant be taken or given.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have write anything down for it to be granted but if you look at the 1rst amendment it gives you a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.
Click to expand...


Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights. 

But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> A miracle is, by definition, is not natural.
> 
> That said, how does the fact that life is miraculous  prove that it is not a right? Especially when I can point to the fact that the Constitution says it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is who you wanna ask. They have determined that a fetus does not have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually didn't. What they said is that the government does not have the power to interfere with the right of a woman to consult with a doctor about health issues.
> 
> Funny how they changed their tune on that, isn't it?
Click to expand...


They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court also does a couple of end runs and claims that a fetus isn't a life *and that's it's OK to kill people who have committed certain crimes.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.
> Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
Click to expand...


I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.

Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree with you M.D. Rawlings.  You cant point out an inalienable right without saying that man designated it to be one.  You dont have a right to life, liberty, or property without some type of government giving you that right. The fact they can all be taken away is proof they can be given. Inalienable means you cant give or take it.  Rights are defined as a license given to you by a government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, show me one example of any government giving anyone the right to life. If you can't find one, feel free to show me an example of everyone spontaneously dying because the government no longer exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter.  They transgressed on another persons given right to life.  Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.
Click to expand...


Not even close.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court is who you wanna ask. They have determined that a fetus does not have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They actually didn't. What they said is that the government does not have the power to interfere with the right of a woman to consult with a doctor about health issues.
> 
> Funny how they changed their tune on that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.
Click to expand...


Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Supreme Court of the United States has said, more than once, that we all have a right to life.*  If you are correct that that right is bestowed by the government you should be able to prove it by showing me a government giving someone the right to life. If, on the other hand, you are wrong, all you will be able to do is argue points that don't actually address the issue.
> 
> So far, you have excelled at the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what you just wrote?  I bolded it for you so you cant miss it this time.  The fact that they said its a right makes it so. The Supreme Court is a branch of the government. The judicial branch to be exact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what you just said? You are the one that claimed there is no right to life, not me, now you are arguing that the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it exists, which I pointed out, proves you right.
> 
> Want to explain that to all the people that don't live in a world where aliens built the pyramids?
Click to expand...



I think you were the only one confused.  You asked for an example of when the government granted a right to life.  I said there is no right to life.  Hence the government has to grant it.  Maybe I should have helped you out by saying the right is not pre-existing.  I thought you were smart enough to follow the flow of conversation.


----------



## RKMBrown

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your rights are granted by the government.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added*: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> Amendment I
> 
> *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or *abridging the freedom of speech*, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.
> 
> Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech.  (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.
Click to expand...


Negative.  It's the only thing holding back this repressive government.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Due Process clause of the 5th amendment allows the government to remove your rights - specifically, your right to life.
> Said right is not granted by ther 5th amendment, but protected by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.
> 
> Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.
> 
> Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.
Click to expand...


Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does, it gives me the clue that you haven't read the 1st Amendment.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.
> 
> But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.
Click to expand...


You are asking for something that has no bearing.  Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written.  After you do that we can proceed on whatever pointless point you are trying to make.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They actually didn't. What they said is that the government does not have the power to interfere with the right of a woman to consult with a doctor about health issues.
> 
> Funny how they changed their tune on that, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.
Click to expand...


Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what you just wrote?  I bolded it for you so you cant miss it this time.  The fact that they said its a right makes it so. The Supreme Court is a branch of the government. The judicial branch to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what you just said? You are the one that claimed there is no right to life, not me, now you are arguing that the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it exists, which I pointed out, proves you right.
> 
> Want to explain that to all the people that don't live in a world where aliens built the pyramids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you were the only one confused.  You asked for an example of when the government granted a right to life.  I said there is no right to life.  Hence the government has to grant it.  Maybe I should have helped you out by saying the right is not pre-existing.  I thought you were smart enough to follow the flow of conversation.
Click to expand...


I know you are incapable of admitting you are wrong.

If the government grants the right to life, prove it. It should be easy, whow me that, outside the government, everytthing dies. How did people exist before the government? How do animals exist without the government protecting their right to life? Why, if government protects people's right to life, do people die without the government's permission?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.
> 
> Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.
> 
> Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.
Click to expand...


Actually, you have it wrong, the Constitution makes no such claim.

But, on the off chance that you can actually prove that rights are alienable, show me a single example of the government giving someone who does not already have the right to life that right.  I can actually show this occurring with civil rights,which clearly come from the government. When a legal resident is granted citizenship they are also granted the right to vote. Why can't you show me the government actually granting anyone the right to life?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, show me one example of any government giving anyone the right to life. If you can't find one, feel free to show me an example of everyone spontaneously dying because the government no longer exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter.  They transgressed on another persons given right to life.  Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close.
Click to expand...


So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter.  They transgressed on another persons given right to life.  Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?
Click to expand...


So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.
> 
> But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for something that has no bearing.  Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written.  After you do that we can proceed on whatever pointless point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...


Grants from the government are different than regular grants. Even when it isn't the government actually doing the granting the government usually requires the grant to be in writing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.
Click to expand...


It has? By whom? When? Was it announced in a peer reviewed journal I don't subscribe to, or did it happen only inside your head?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what you just said? You are the one that claimed there is no right to life, not me, now you are arguing that the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it exists, which I pointed out, proves you right.
> 
> Want to explain that to all the people that don't live in a world where aliens built the pyramids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you were the only one confused.  You asked for an example of when the government granted a right to life.  I said there is no right to life.  Hence the government has to grant it.  Maybe I should have helped you out by saying the right is not pre-existing.  I thought you were smart enough to follow the flow of conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are incapable of admitting you are wrong.
> 
> If the government grants the right to life, prove it. It should be easy, whow me that, outside the government, everytthing dies. How did people exist before the government? How do animals exist without the government protecting their right to life? Why, if government protects people's right to life, do people die without the government's permission?
Click to expand...


I just did. They prosecute people for murder. They say people have the right to life.....in the declaration of independence. By doing so they grant the right to life. Is this hard for you to understand?  What does your point about life existing outside of government have to do with rights? You are confusing yourself with ideas that have nothing to do with rights


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter.  They transgressed on another persons given right to life.  Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?
Click to expand...


If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.
> 
> But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking for something that has no bearing.  Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written.  After you do that we can proceed on whatever pointless point you are trying to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grants form the government are different than regular grants. Even when it isn't the government actually doing the granting the government usually requires the grant to be in writing.
Click to expand...


Who said this and why did you believe them when they say its different? Usually is not good enough. My point is that a grant does not have to be written which you just admitted by using the word "usually".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.
Click to expand...


I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.
Click to expand...


Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example.  The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?
Click to expand...


Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example.  The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.
Click to expand...


I haven't asked you to repeat yourself, I have demanded that you prove your point. You seem to think, just like everyone else who insists that natural rights do not exist, that all you have to do is assert that you are right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.
Click to expand...


Is that because you read all the posts in this thread, or is it because you think aliens built the pyramids?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.
Click to expand...


how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example.  The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't asked you to repeat yourself, I have demanded that you prove your point. You seem to think, just like everyone else who insists that natural rights do not exist, that all you have to do is assert that you are right.
Click to expand...


Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one.  I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that because you read all the posts in this thread, or is it because you think aliens built the pyramids?
Click to expand...


I know when I'm in your head Quantum.   You start trying claim things you cant prove and attribute them to me.  So far you are the only one that believes aliens built the pyramids. Stop stalling and give me an example of a natural or unalienable right.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.
Click to expand...


Quantum always does this when he starts writing faster than he can think.  Its a stall tactic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> the immanent realm of being is contingent...the fact that they are absolute and inherently universal.  That the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are absolute and universal is self-evident
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not self-evident by any means. Contingency implies relativism. Conditional circumstances imply the subjective. There is no reason to think human animals have access to absolute capacities. By our very nature we are subject in time and space. Therefore we cannot make declarations that transcend time and space with any meaning or weight.
> 
> However, universality has definite meaning. When we find certain actions or moral behaviors transcend culture and geography, then we call it universal. This is by no means absolute. It seems like you're using them interchangeably and I want to appeal to your sensible nature by ceasing such a faux-pas. William Lane Craig is a sharp defender of this essential demarcation. Although it seems semantical, words have meanings and we need to stick to them in argumentative prose.
Click to expand...


*gnarlylove, you've got my statement about the immanent realm of being completely divorced from its context.   

I've never argued anything as stupid as what you&#8217;re alleging in my life.

And contingency does not imply relativism in any way, shape or form, when the entity that is contingent is substantiated by an entity that is not contingent!

The term contingent as it appears in the entire context has nothing to do with "the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision".


The issue of contingency in my post  went to the relationship between the immanent realm of being and the transcendent realm of being, before you struck the latter from the context. And besides there's a period after that sentence.  The sentence and the thought that follows is different. 

Further, I never claimed that "the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision" were  demonstrably absolute . . . wait for it  . . . beyond human consciousness from any objective perspective at all.

Once again, I've never argued anything as stupid as what you're alleging in my life.  

In fact, in the link I provided just below the paragraph we're discussing, I emphatically stated that the relativist could be right, objectively speaking, though his position, given the absolute laws of logic, is held as a matter of dogma, not logic. 

In short, you're arguing against an idea I never asserted.

Hence, I'm not using the terms absolute and universal interchangeably at all.  I introduced an entirely new idea that has absolutely nothing to do with the previous idea or with what you're talking about now.

Or are you actually talking about the imperatives of natural law?  Not clear is it?  That's why one doesn't willy-nilly strike the context of things.

And in any event, if that's what you're referring to, as I can only guess, I never argued that they were absolute in the sense that you're talking about either!



*


*Look, you need to delete your post and start all over.  This is a complete mess.  Nothing in the first part of your post reflects the actual contents of mine.  Nothing!  Every single point you make is ass backwards.   I'm not reading the rest.  Fix this!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.
Click to expand...


Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically.  A risibly stupid claim.   

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.  

OP?  I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.   

*No.  Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
Click to expand...


*Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quantum always does this when he starts writing faster than he can think.  Its a stall tactic.
Click to expand...




RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.
Click to expand...


Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically.  A risibly stupid claim.   

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.  

OP?  I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.   

*No.  Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
Click to expand...


*Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.
Click to expand...




RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.
Click to expand...


Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically.  A risibly stupid claim.   

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.  

OP?  I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.   

*No.  Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
Click to expand...


*Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum, just copy and paste your previous arguments.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*One of you asked how much property does one have a natural right to have.*

That question has already been answered in this thread, hasn't it?  What you're actually doing here is implying that it _can't_ be answered; or more to the point, as you just said in the above, you're implying that none of the natural rights of man can be identified or defined.  Well, that's bull too, isn't it?

I just identified one of them, and your follow up question necessarily concedes the fact of my answer.  The first article of private property, the nonnegotiable asset of one's private property, is one's own self.  Duh.  What the hell are you talking about?  Everybody knows that; indeed, everybody who has ever lived knows that.  You know that.  That is precisely what is meant by private property.  The first fact as well as the first principle of private property is that each man owns his own self and his own aspirations.  The fact that everyman requires certain basic things to survive goes to the private property associated with the immediate material needs of a sentient being's existence:  food, shelter, clothing and the means to acquire them, beginning with his very own mental and physical faculties of ingenuity and movement.  Everything that has ever been owned by human beings in history falls under one of those three categories.

No mystery there. 

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man:  the right to be secure in one's life, in one's fundamental liberties and in one's private property.  The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man.  And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature _but_ the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature:  the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

There's nothing mysterious about any of that.

As to their parameters, which is all you're really asking in the above:  one's rights end where another's begin.  Even sociopaths know that.  Why redundantly go through them one at a time.  That natural law applies universally, and every swingin' Dick and Jane that has ever lived, including you, knows where their rights end and where those of others' begin.

The rest is mere semantics, namely, your semantics, dancing around and avoiding the actual facts of human conduct and human interaction in the real world.


----------



## Asclepias

Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.



I just told you what every one of them are in *three* sentences.  You wanted just *one*.  Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man  in _just_ three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man.  Bonus!



> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.
> 
> Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech.  (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)
> 
> 
> 
> Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negative.  It's the only thing holding back this repressive government.
Click to expand...

The protection afforded to a right?  Correct.
But, to protect a right, it must first exist.  Affording protection to a right does not create, confer or grant that right, it simply protects it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.
> 
> Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.
> 
> Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.
Click to expand...

The constitution claims no such thing.
Disagree?
Cite the text.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.
> 
> But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are asking for something that has no bearing.  Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written.
Click to expand...

You continue to choose to be wrong.
There is no sound basis for your position that our government can grant anything, much less a right, without a legal mechamism that does so.  Fact of the matter is, ther is no body of law anywhere in our government that grants anyone the right to free speech, and so there is no way to soundly argue that said right was granted to us by the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.
Click to expand...

Side note:
However true this may be, it in no way supports the idea that the rights in question were granted by the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one.  I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.


Says he who believes the government granted us the right to free speech, but cannot provide a citation where the government grants us that right--  and thinks that's OK because he thinks he doesn't have to.
:roll:


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.


The right to life.
The right to liberty.
The right to property.

All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.

There ya go.


----------



## gnarlylove

1. MD, you said Lockean principles are worthwhile. I said they are not.

2. You said humans have absolute capacity to understand something beyond time and space (absolute specifically means something that goes beyond condition to apply universally and eternally). I argued from many angles why this is not possible for humans.

Are you kidding me about contingency? You literally admit the human being is not self-sufficient without external input, namely from an absolute source, and you still consider the contingent human being itself to understand absolute declarations. Absolute means total self-sufficiency, complete, not dependent. Your sentences regarding this matter are fanciful delusions. They make literally no sense. A human being that is contingent is by definition not absolute, not self contained, not self sufficient, not complete.

3. You said animals are property. I said this was completely false and argued from two angles why that is utterly false.

4. You identified Christianity as your belief system and I spent many paragraphs asking you valid questions about how you think private property is justified? Notice the source pf private property isn't in Jesus or the Bible yet you consider it as Christian as Paul's letters. How implausible.

Your foul response was to raise your voice by increasing fonts, a sincerely gaudy move. Here I thought you had some brains but instead you don't reply to my 4 main issues, instead, you tell me to go fuck myself basically and re-write to your liking. How pitiful from someone who uses such prose to have such a shy sense of introspection. I'd urge you to read the reply as I did yours respectfully. I don't think you are a bad person in any way so I don't get why you are so fucking upset. You have consistenly tried to use reason but on those issues you shut down. I guess a good Christian shuts down when they have genuine challenges. I was a Christian just like you once so I'd know, whether you admit to yourself or not. Or prove me wrong but respectfully replying. I'm not stupid, you made these remarks and I responded to them:

*You called animals property, you think absolutes are understood by subjects, you unquestioningly accept private property despite its extreme evils of depravity of the poor, and you asserted you were a Christian.*

Either you made those claims and my post remains highly relevant or you did not make those claims in which case I am wrong and my post is irrelevant. But we know the facts, you don't want to face them. Hopefully you will return to this at a later date when you are more mature. I mean how silly is it to say re-write something because I don't like how it makes me feel. The fact is if you believe those 4 things I mentioned, you clearly have never considered what the hell they mean because their implications are radical and anti-Christ-like. Again, be mature and assess my claims or shy away and call me names. Your choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.
Click to expand...


I posted the definition. Are you claiming that I made it up? If so, feel free to post the real definition.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.
> 
> Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.
> 
> Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The constitution claims no such thing.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text.
Click to expand...




> 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.



there you go

LOL  omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example.  The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't asked you to repeat yourself, I have demanded that you prove your point. You seem to think, just like everyone else who insists that natural rights do not exist, that all you have to do is assert that you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one.  I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.
Click to expand...


The record says that I am asking you to repeat yourself because I refuse to repeat myself? 

If you are half as smart as you think you are you will not only be able to refute my examples, you will be able to find them by searching for a simple Latin phrase. If, on the other hand, you aren't even as smart as I think you are, you won't even be able to find them. Feel free to prove me wrong, or actually make my point for me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you read all the posts in this thread, or is it because you think aliens built the pyramids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know when I'm in your head Quantum.   You start trying claim things you cant prove and attribute them to me.  So far you are the only one that believes aliens built the pyramids. Stop stalling and give me an example of a natural or unalienable right.
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> It's clear that whatever "should" be encouraged must have a universal quality. Currently is it not being applied universally. Exceptions, like the elites, have ran the show for too long. We need to stand firmly against this mockery of justice and the good. This is why employ terms like natural rights, because supposedly all people should have the right to whatever we define as rights, like Bin Laden deserved a trial, as do all people accused of any crime. The Nuremberg  trail clearly states this.
> 
> So debating about what these rights are is a matter of viewing all people as people. unfortunately the world evidently treats blacks, muslims, minorities and "terrorists" as lesser peoples or not people at all with no rights. This is an abomination of rights and justice yet it seems axiomatic among the ruling elite--precisely those who determine what rights are and who gets them! Thus natural rights are fictions because they are not applied universally.



You already conceded that natural rights exist, that they are inherent and universal.  Faced with the cogency of the argument I asserted from first principles, which you never saw coming, you were compelled to concede the point that all of the objections on this board by the naysayers were mere semantics.   Recall?

I can quote you, but how about you explain to us why you're reversing yourself here.  Did you forget and revert back to what I showed to be a fallacious belief?

Further, the elites you're complaining about are statists and crony capitalists.  And such  despise the natural rights of man; they do not tout them at all.  You're not making a lick of sense anymore.  Governments can't assert/grant natural rights.  That's absurd.  Indeed, you're contradicting yourself again.  You conceded what they are.  You conceded what their nature is.  How could the government assert the things we talked about against the people?  Natural rights can only be asserted against the government.  What governments assert are civil rights/protections, including those economic rights you go on about . . . on behalf of some against the interests of others.  And invariably it is the powerful that control how these so-called rights are wielded. 

Why can't you see that?  Such power is never about the stated purpose.   

And it is folks like you who encourage the government to grab this kind of power.

*BTW, you need to delete that post of yours and start over.  It's a mess.  I can't possibly discuss it with you in that kind of shape.  I'd have to go through it and correct all your errors and misapprehensions first.  Futile.

Why don't you take a piece of it at a time and make sure you understand what I'm actually saying first.

What happened there?  It's god awful.

You've got me making arguments that are clearly false, stupid, retarded, the stuff of a moron, arguments that I have never made in my entire life.

Dude.  

Deal with the entire context, and don't strip things out, making it read something it's not.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum, just copy and paste your previous arguments.



I prefer to make them work.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.



I did one in three words, no one has refuted it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution claims no such thing.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there you go
> 
> LOL  omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different
Click to expand...


It makes you wrong


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution claims no such thing.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there you go
> 
> LOL  omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes you wrong
Click to expand...


I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> 1. MD, you said Lockean principles are worthwhile. I said they are not.
> 
> *2. You said humans have absolute capacity to understand something beyond time and space (absolute specifically means something that goes beyond condition to apply universally and eternally). I argued from many angles why this is not possible for humans.*
> 
> *Are you kidding me about contingency? You literally admit the human being is not self-sufficient without external input, namely from an absolute source, and you still consider the contingent human being itself to understand absolute declarations. Absolute means total self-sufficiency, complete, not dependent. Your sentences regarding this matter are fanciful delusions. They make literally no sense. A human being that is contingent is by definition not absolute, not self contained, not self sufficient, not complete.*
> 
> 3. You said animals are property. I said this was completely false and argued from two angles why that is utterly false.
> 
> 4. You identified Christianity as your belief system and I spent many paragraphs asking you valid questions about how you think private property is justified? Notice the source pf private property isn't in Jesus or the Bible yet you consider it as Christian as Paul's letters. How implausible.
> 
> Your foul response was to raise your voice by increasing fonts, a sincerely gaudy move. Here I thought you had some brains but instead you don't reply to my 4 main issues, instead, you tell me to go fuck myself basically and re-write to your liking. How pitiful from someone who uses such prose to have such a shy sense of introspection. I'd urge you to read the reply as I did yours respectfully. I don't think you are a bad person in any way so I don't get why you are so fucking upset. You have consistenly tried to use reason but on those issues you shut down. I guess a good Christian shuts down when they have genuine challenges. I was a Christian just like you once so I'd know, whether you admit to yourself or not. Or prove me wrong but respectfully replying. I'm not stupid, you made these remarks and I responded to them:
> 
> You called animals property, you think absolutes are understood by subjects, you unquestioningly accept private property despite its extreme evils of depravity of the poor, and you asserted you were a Christian.
> 
> Either you made those claims and my post remains highly relevant or you did not make those claims in which case I am wrong and my post is irrelevant. But we know the facts, you don't want to face them. Hopefully you will return to this at a later date when you are more mature. I mean how silly is it to say re-write something because I don't like how it makes me feel. The fact is if you believe those 4 things I mentioned, you clearly have never considered what the hell they mean because their implications are radical and anti-Christ-like. Again, be mature and assess my claims or shy away and call me names. Your choice.



I see that you're still putting words in my mouth and arguing against straw men.  You are not cognizant of all the facts.  You're babbling conventional, commonly understood principles of logic as if they were profound.  Things I understand at a glance, while others scratch their heads for hours.  Are you kidding me?  But you are leveraging them against a ghost, a fantasy that exists nowhere but in your mind.   

Don't talk to me about manners when you are violating the rules of this board and claiming that I'm arguing things I am not.  You are not allowed to strip quotes from their context.  It's against the rules of this board to do so, and the idiocy that you're attributing to me as a result is why it's against the rules. 

This is your third warning.  Remove the post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit:  I didn't argue the idea in bold as you claim.  You stripped my argument out of its context and have got it completely ass backwards.  I have no idea what craziness you spouted after that, as I stopped reading you.  But as for animals; indeed, they are natural resources or property.  How could they be anything else since they don't have rights as you yourself conceded in your previous post with your talk about lions?  We agreed on that point.  Now you're spouting the reverse. Since when were they anything else?  Do you eat meat?  I do.  I love a great streak.  Thick, juicy, medium rare, please.  What in the world are you talking about?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Psst.  Asclepias!*



Asclepias said:


> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.



I just told you what every one of them are in *three* sentences.  You wanted just *one*.  Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man  in _just_ three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man.  Bonus!



> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> there you go
> 
> LOL  omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes you wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?
Click to expand...


*Psst.  dilloduck.*



Asclepias said:


> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.



I just told you what every one of them are in *three* sentences.  You wanted just *one*.  Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man  in _just_ three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man.  Bonus!



> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> there you go
> 
> LOL  omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes you wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?
Click to expand...



Days ago, it still stands unchallenged by anyone, even the people who are actually smarter than you who disagreed with me.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told you what every one of them are in *three* sentences.  You wanted just *one*.  Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man  in _just_ three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man.  Bonus!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you. I was hoping this is what you meant. Basically what you are telling me is that humans have natural rights because you or somebody else said so? Is this a correct assumption?

You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.

What natural rights do you have without the government there to protect you against someone bigger and stronger than you?


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.
> 
> But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking for something that has no bearing.  Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to choose to be wrong.
> There is no sound basis for your position that our government can grant anything, much less a right, without a legal mechamism that does so.  Fact of the matter is, ther is no body of law anywhere in our government that grants anyone the right to free speech, and so there is no way to soundly argue that said right was granted to us by the government.
Click to expand...


You continue to avoid providing me with the definition of grant and where it says it has to be written. You have no basis at all for such a position. The Supreme Court has protected the granted right to free speech on several occasions.  It is stated in the Declaration of Independence as well.  The very fact that the Supreme Court has protected the right to free speech should tell you they granted it.  The Supreme Court happens to be a body of law. The right only exists because a governing body is there to protect it. If free speech was not a granted right written or otherwise how is the Supreme Court entitled to protect it?


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to life.
> The right to liberty.
> The right to property.
> 
> All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.
> 
> There ya go.
Click to expand...


What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I haven't asked you to repeat yourself*, I have demanded that you prove your point. You seem to think, just like everyone else who insists that natural rights do not exist, that all you have to do is assert that you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one.  I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The record says that I am asking you to repeat yourself because I refuse to repeat myself?
> 
> If you are half as smart as you think you are you will not only be able to refute my examples, you will be able to find them by searching for a simple Latin phrase. If, on the other hand, you aren't even as smart as I think you are, you won't even be able to find them. Feel free to prove me wrong, or actually make my point for me.
Click to expand...


You are confusing yourself again. Read the first sentence of your post slowly and deliberately. Be careful of the verbs. They seem to trip you up. I bolded it for you.

I'm not attempting to be smart. Thats a hangup and lack of confidence you seem to have in yourself. I answered your question but you have not answered mine.  I dont need to provide you with a latin phrase. I only need to point out the lack of logic in your argument.  As usual you run and hide from providing anything because you have nothing.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because you read all the posts in this thread, or is it because you think aliens built the pyramids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know when I'm in your head Quantum.   You start trying claim things you cant prove and attribute them to me.  So far you are the only one that believes aliens built the pyramids. Stop stalling and give me an example of a natural or unalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...


Im not the one talking about aliens.  Its obviously a stalling tactic Quantum.  Its ok but just know I know.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did one in three words, no one has refuted it.
Click to expand...


I just did.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to life.
> The right to liberty.
> The right to property.
> 
> All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
Click to expand...


They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to life.
> The right to liberty.
> The right to property.
> 
> All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
Click to expand...


I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.  I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.



> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, try to baffle them with BS.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> there you go
> 
> LOL  omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes you wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?
Click to expand...


A natural right is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Liberty from the dictates of any other
Living
Breathing
Celebrating
Worshipping
Thinking
Speaking
Hoping
Learning
Believing
Singing
Holding ones own opinions about anything
Expressing ones own opinions about anything
Writing ones own opinions about anything
Enjoying one's own property.
Dressing and conducting oneself as one pleases in his/her own space
Eating what he/she wants that he/she can acquire for himself/herself
Loving
Hating
Caring
Obsessing
Aspiring for one's own goals
Being who and what a person is

All such things are natural/God given/unalienable rights.  And yes such rights can be infringed.  Yes such rights can be violated.  But they are nevertheless, as the Founders defined them, what they are.

And the whole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a nation in which every person's natural/God given/unalienable rights would be recognized and protected so that every person would have the ability to exercise them.


----------



## gnarlylove

M.D. Rawlings said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that whatever "should" be encouraged must have a universal quality. Currently is it not being applied universally. Exceptions, like the elites, have ran the show for too long. We need to stand firmly against this mockery of justice and the good. This is why employ terms like natural rights, because supposedly all people should have the right to whatever we define as rights, like Bin Laden deserved a trial, as do all people accused of any crime. The Nuremberg  trail clearly states this.
> 
> So debating about what these rights are is a matter of viewing all people as people. unfortunately the world evidently treats blacks, muslims, minorities and "terrorists" as lesser peoples or not people at all with no rights. This is an abomination of rights and justice yet it seems axiomatic among the ruling elite--precisely those who determine what rights are and who gets them! Thus natural rights are fictions because they are not applied universally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already conceded that natural rights exist, that they are inherent and universal.  Faced with the cogency of the argument I asserted from first principles, which you never saw coming, you were compelled to concede the point that all of the objections on this board by the naysayers were mere semantics.   Recall?
> 
> I can quote you, but how about you explain to us why you're reversing yourself here.  Did you forget and revert back to what I showed to be a fallacious belief?
> 
> Further, the elites you're complaining about are statists and crony capitalists.  And such  despise the natural rights of man; they do not tout them at all.  You're not making a lick of sense anymore.  Governments can't assert/grant natural rights.  That's absurd.  Indeed, you're contradicting yourself again.  You conceded what they are.  You conceded what their nature is.  How could the government assert the things we talked about against the people?  Natural rights can only be asserted against the government.  What governments assert are civil rights/protections, including those economic rights you go on about . . . on behalf of some against the interests of others.  And invariably it is the powerful that control how these so-called rights are wielded.
> 
> Why can't you see that?  Such power is never about the stated purpose.
> 
> And it is folks like you who encourage the government to grab this kind of power.
> 
> *BTW, you need to delete that post of yours and start over.  It's a mess.  I can't possibly discuss it with you in that kind of shape.  I'd have to go through it and correct all your errors and misapprehensions first.  Futile.
> 
> Why don't you take a piece of it at a time and make sure you understand what I'm actually saying first.
> 
> What happened there?  It's god awful.
> 
> You've got me making arguments that are clearly false, stupid, retarded, the stuff of a moron, arguments that I have never made in my entire life.
> 
> Dude.
> 
> Deal with the entire context, and don't strip things out, making it read something it's not.*
Click to expand...


*Natural rights are not inherent in any absolute sense.* That is to say they do not exist beyond space and time, Earth. They are purely the constructions of the human animal and thus only have meaning within human context. Therefore when humanity ceases, so do "natural rights." This demonstrates natural rights are contingent upon the existence of human organism on planet Earth and have no meaning beyond us. If you call this inherent, fine; but considering inherent to mean "for all time and everywhere, absolutely" it makes not sense.

I said *natural rights must be universal but given they must be universal does not mean they exist outside of human language*. Natural rights can only make sense if they are universal. But just as you acknowledge natural rights do not exist for animals, they do not exist for people either. *Natural rights are useful constructions for understanding how to behave. That does not mean they are real or true.* By the same token, using the concept of property to designate something you use does not mean it is property. Rather, it stands to be a convenient though false concept for such designation. You do not own things as a result of use. You do not own things as a result of a piece of paper. Another example is money. Money has no inherent value or meaning but in 21st century it carries a fiat meaning and is very useful. Just because something is useful does not mean it has inherent existence!

Furthermore, crony capitalists are not the problem. People are not the problem per se, it's the system we have erected. It is the institution of private property and ownership that speciously gives people the "right" to deprive other people of rights and necessities (water, food, and life). If we lived on an infinite planet, private property would not be a big deal but since there are limited resources, it is a major ordeal! Just give private property some serious thought, please, before getting pissy.

You're right, your assumptions regarding these topics are without cogent foundation. They are obviously core assumptions of your worldview and and so you refuse to address them by screaming heresy. Why? Because you've never been challenged at your core and it's evident. Just take one example that relates to natural rights.

Please justify to me why you think ownership is real and gives people and corporations the right to deprive other people access to what it is they supposedly "own"--such as vast agriculture, watersheds and energy. What gives them the "right" to have free access and yet charge others? A trivial and meaningless document? Just think for two seconds about this. Just because humanity has erected a particular system does not mean that particular system is justified or makes sense. Indeed, it takes no thought to realize how private property is used as a tool to keep much of the world impoverished. Do you really think Christ would approve of depriving the poor? Are you kidding me? Have you ever read the Bible? I can assure you it denounces such treatment of the poor, I've read it over 3 times cover to cover.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes you wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A natural right is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Liberty from the dictates of any other
> Living
> Breathing
> Celebrating
> Worshipping
> Thinking
> Speaking
> Hoping
> Learning
> Believing
> Singing
> Holding ones own opinions about anything
> Expressing ones own opinions about anything
> Writing ones own opinions about anything
> Enjoying one's own property.
> Dressing and conducting oneself as one pleases in his/her own space
> Eating what he/she wants that he/she can acquire for himself/herself
> Loving
> Hating
> Caring
> Obsessing
> Aspiring for one's own goals
> Being who and what a person is
> 
> All such things are natural/God given/unalienable rights.  And yes such rights can be infringed.  Yes such rights can be violated.  But they are nevertheless, as the Founders defined them, what they are.
> 
> And the whole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a nation in which every person's natural/God given/unalienable rights would be recognized and protected so that every person would have the ability to exercise them.
Click to expand...


So basically natural rights exist because someone believed in a unprovable theory?

Does the conflict between the words "natural" and "rights" alarm anyone?  I mean how can a right be natural since natural means without human intervention?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A natural right is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Liberty from the dictates of any other
> Living
> Breathing
> Celebrating
> Worshipping
> Thinking
> Speaking
> Hoping
> Learning
> Believing
> Singing
> Holding ones own opinions about anything
> Expressing ones own opinions about anything
> Writing ones own opinions about anything
> Enjoying one's own property.
> Dressing and conducting oneself as one pleases in his/her own space
> Eating what he/she wants that he/she can acquire for himself/herself
> Loving
> Hating
> Caring
> Obsessing
> Aspiring for one's own goals
> Being who and what a person is
> 
> All such things are natural/God given/unalienable rights.  And yes such rights can be infringed.  Yes such rights can be violated.  But they are nevertheless, as the Founders defined them, what they are.
> 
> And the whole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a nation in which every person's natural/God given/unalienable rights would be recognized and protected so that every person would have the ability to exercise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically natural rights exist because someone believed in a unprovable theory?
> 
> Does the conflict between the words "natural" and "rights" alarm anyone?  I mean how can a right be natural since natural means without human intervention?
Click to expand...


Most of the Founders viewed the rights they recognized as unalienable as God given.  Others used the term 'natural'.   We can be message board numb nuts and nitpick semantics.  Or we can be intelligent and actually consider the concept.

The Founders intended us to have a republic in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other totalitarian authority could dictate to any person who and what he/she must be and/or how he/she must speak, believe, or live.   It was to be a nation in which the people would have their unalienable rights secured from infringement by anarchists, government, and each other, and then would be left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

I posted a partial but pretty good list of what the Founders considered a 'natural' or 'God given' or 'unalienable' right to be.

Can you argue with it?  Or is everything on that list something that a person living in liberty can consider an unalienable right if there is liberty?


----------



## gnarlylove

MD, assessing claims you did not make should not make you threaten me to remove my post. Why is something you did not say so threatening? It makes no sense.

If you really believe you don't think private property is real, come out and say it. If you do not believe in Christianity, tell me. If you do not accept Locke's principles, tell me. Instead you have continually made assertions that I made claims that you did not make. If you really believe that, show me. Stop pussy footing around and threatening my by cogently assessing where I went wrong. So far you've relied on personal attacks and gaudy fonts.

I am completely open to deleting the post and would do it in a heartbeat with good reason. But absent any evidence, I have no reason to. If you think there are good reasons, quote me and explain why you are not making those claims. 

Instead 3 times you have made gaudy personal attacks with gaudy font. This leads me to think you are a coward instead of a sincere intellectual. Please prove me wrong, I am 100% open to it. But if you think threats and assertions have any weight, then you are a poser. Assertions must be backed up with evidence. I have seen no evidence why my arguments do not reflect your position.

Regarding animals, they have equal rights as we do. In other words, natural rights don't exist for people  and don't exist for animals. Thus they are equal.* I never even hinted that animals are property*. I quoted a biologist who said humans are no better than animals. But don't take my word for it. Read your own holy book. Tell me where it says animals are property. It doesn't because property was not a concept until the 16th century. We are suppose to take care of animals just like humans according to the holy scripture. Thus your concept that animals are property to be distributed does not come from biology, does not come from the bible, so where are you getting it?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural right is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Liberty from the dictates of any other
> Living
> Breathing
> Celebrating
> Worshipping
> Thinking
> Speaking
> Hoping
> Learning
> Believing
> Singing
> Holding ones own opinions about anything
> Expressing ones own opinions about anything
> Writing ones own opinions about anything
> Enjoying one's own property.
> Dressing and conducting oneself as one pleases in his/her own space
> Eating what he/she wants that he/she can acquire for himself/herself
> Loving
> Hating
> Caring
> Obsessing
> Aspiring for one's own goals
> Being who and what a person is
> 
> All such things are natural/God given/unalienable rights.  And yes such rights can be infringed.  Yes such rights can be violated.  But they are nevertheless, as the Founders defined them, what they are.
> 
> And the whole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a nation in which every person's natural/God given/unalienable rights would be recognized and protected so that every person would have the ability to exercise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically natural rights exist because someone believed in a unprovable theory?
> 
> Does the conflict between the words "natural" and "rights" alarm anyone?  I mean how can a right be natural since natural means without human intervention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the Founders viewed the rights they recognized as unalienable as God given.  Others used the term 'natural'.   We can be message board numb nuts and nitpick semantics.  Or we can be intelligent and actually consider the concept.
> 
> The Founders intended us to have a republic in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other totalitarian authority could dictate to any person who and what he/she must be and/or how he/she must speak, believe, or live.   It was to be a nation in which the people would have their unalienable rights secured from both anarchists and government, and then would be left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> I posted a partial but pretty good list of what the Founders considered a 'natural' or 'God given' or 'unalienable' right to be.
> 
> *Can you argue with it?*  Or is everything on that list something that a person living in liberty can consider an unalienable right if there is liberty?
Click to expand...


Its hard to argue without addressing semantics.  The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give.  All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights.  Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically natural rights exist because someone believed in a unprovable theory?
> 
> Does the conflict between the words "natural" and "rights" alarm anyone?  I mean how can a right be natural since natural means without human intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the Founders viewed the rights they recognized as unalienable as God given.  Others used the term 'natural'.   We can be message board numb nuts and nitpick semantics.  Or we can be intelligent and actually consider the concept.
> 
> The Founders intended us to have a republic in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other totalitarian authority could dictate to any person who and what he/she must be and/or how he/she must speak, believe, or live.   It was to be a nation in which the people would have their unalienable rights secured from both anarchists and government, and then would be left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> I posted a partial but pretty good list of what the Founders considered a 'natural' or 'God given' or 'unalienable' right to be.
> 
> *Can you argue with it?*  Or is everything on that list something that a person living in liberty can consider an unalienable right if there is liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its hard to argue without addressing semantics.  The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give.  All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights.  Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.
Click to expand...


But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that. 

So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.

And yes, one person can deny such rights to another.  But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.

The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the Founders viewed the rights they recognized as unalienable as God given.  Others used the term 'natural'.   We can be message board numb nuts and nitpick semantics.  Or we can be intelligent and actually consider the concept.
> 
> The Founders intended us to have a republic in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other totalitarian authority could dictate to any person who and what he/she must be and/or how he/she must speak, believe, or live.   It was to be a nation in which the people would have their unalienable rights secured from both anarchists and government, and then would be left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> I posted a partial but pretty good list of what the Founders considered a 'natural' or 'God given' or 'unalienable' right to be.
> 
> *Can you argue with it?*  Or is everything on that list something that a person living in liberty can consider an unalienable right if there is liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its hard to argue without addressing semantics.  The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give.  All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights.  Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.
> 
> So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.
> 
> And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. * But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.*
> 
> The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.
> 
> The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its hard to argue without addressing semantics.  The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give.  All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights.  Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.
> 
> So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.
> 
> And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. * But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.*
> 
> The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.
> 
> The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
Click to expand...


Does air exist?  Sunshine?  Do you think?  Do you speak?  Do you hope?  Do you believe?  Do you hate?  Do you rejoice?  Do you take pleasure in work or play or achieving goals?  Do you value life?  Do you value liberty that allows you to be whomever and whatever you choose to be?  That is the proof that natural rights exist.    Many papal bulls and other government decrees have violated the natural rights of the people.  Bad people would deny other people their rights.  That is what the Constitution was intended to correct--a government that would recognize that people possess unalienable rights and that would not presume to assign rights to the people but would protect their rights that already existed.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.
> 
> So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.
> 
> And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. * But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.*
> 
> The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.
> 
> The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does air exist?  Sunshine?  Do you think?  Do you speak?  Do you hope?  Do you believe?  Do you hate?  Do you rejoice?  Do you take pleasure in work or play or achieving goals?  Do you value life?  Do you value liberty that allows you to be whomever and whatever you choose to be?  That is the proof that natural rights exist.    Many papal bulls and other government decrees have violated the natural rights of the people.  Bad people would deny other people their rights.  That is what the Constitution was intended to correct--a government that would recognize that people possess unalienable rights and that would not presume to assign rights to the people but would protect their rights that already existed.
Click to expand...


I don't want you to think I believe it was a bad concept so using the Dum Diversas was not the best example.  i do all of those things and yes I agree these things exist.  However, it seems as if natural rights exist solely because we have faith they exist which is a manmade construct. Is this what you are trying to convey?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Natural rights are nothing more than rights that certain people think are effectively non-negotiable when a government is set up and given power over the people.

The government must secure those rights, and must not deny them.

It's all theoretical.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does air exist?  Sunshine?  Do you think?  Do you speak?  Do you hope?  Do you believe?  Do you hate?  Do you rejoice?  Do you take pleasure in work or play or achieving goals?  Do you value life?  Do you value liberty that allows you to be whomever and whatever you choose to be?  That is the proof that natural rights exist.    Many papal bulls and other government decrees have violated the natural rights of the people.  Bad people would deny other people their rights.  That is what the Constitution was intended to correct--a government that would recognize that people possess unalienable rights and that would not presume to assign rights to the people but would protect their rights that already existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want you to think I believe it was a bad concept so using the Dum Diversas was not the best example.  i do all of those things and yes I agree these things exist.  However, it seems as if natural rights exist solely because we have faith they exist which is a manmade construct. Is this what you are trying to convey?
Click to expand...


It isn't a matter of belief.  It is a reality.  They don't exist because somebody thought them up or believes in them.  If you are forbidden to think, believe, hope, understand, yearn for, would these things cease to exist?  If you didn't believe in thought, hope, understanding etc., would those things cease to exist?  They exist because they exist and we had nothing to do with that.

Liberty is to be able to utilize all that exists that requires no contribution or participation by any other unless the other willingly consents to such contribution or participation.  That is what unalienable rights are.  And that is what the Constitution was intended to recognize, promote, and defend.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told you what every one of them are in *three* sentences.  You wanted just *one*.  Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man  in _just_ three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man.  Bonus!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was hoping this is what you meant. Basically what you are telling me is that humans have natural rights because you or somebody else said so? Is this a correct assumption?
> 
> You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
> You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
> You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.
> 
> What natural rights do you have without the government there to protect you against someone bigger and stronger than you?
Click to expand...


As usual, you are confused, and wrong. The fact that people die, even at the hands of others, is not ipso facto evidence that the right to life does not exist. You really should go back and read the thread so you don't repeat the same mistakes other people have made. Alternately, you could arrogantly presume that you are the smartest person ever and pretend that all of your arguments are original.


----------



## dilloduck

NYcarbineer said:


> Natural rights are nothing more than rights that certain people think are effectively non-negotiable when a government is set up and given power over the people.
> 
> The government must secure those rights, and must not deny them.
> 
> It's all theoretical.



Yes---chosen and prioritized by a few elite who have decided that they just know better.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to life.
> The right to liberty.
> The right to property.
> 
> All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
Click to expand...


I was going to mock your position by repeating your post and changing a few words to show how you are arguing in a circle, but you would have missed the point in its entirety, so I will simply ask you what evidence you use to base your position that rights exist without government on. Keep in mind that I can show you arguing that slavery is wrong, which is an absurd position to take for anyone who insists that no one has any rights unless they are granted by the government. If no one actually has rights, then there is no logical, or moral, basis to ever fight for them, yet you  insist that we should actually fight against people that want to take away our non existent rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

Using one illustration--and PLEASE do not use this as license to rehash the whole issue--

. . . .let's look at the CEO of Chick-fil-a.  He expressed a belief in traditional marriage.

Others expressed their belief that promotion of traditional marriage is to deny gay people their unalienable rights.

Both the expression of belief in traditional marriage and expression of support for gay rights fall within the concept of unalienable rights.

But if the CEO of Chick-fil-a sought to punish or impose consequences on the pro-gay-rights activist, he has stepped over the line into infringement of unalienable rights.

And whomever would see to punish or impose consequences on the CEO of Chick-fil-a for his support of traditional marriage also step over the line into infringement of unalienable rights.

Under the banner of liberty to exercise unalienable rights, each has the perfect right to do business with the other or not do business with the other.  Each has a perfect right to object if anybody is violating the rights of another and to stop them with force if necessary.  But neither has a natural right to force others to accept or comply with his belief--he only has a right to hold that belief.  And neither has a natural right to punish anybody else because they hold a belief that is politically incorrect or offensive.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its hard to argue without addressing semantics.  The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give.  All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights.  Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.
> 
> So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.
> 
> And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. * But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.*
> 
> The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.
> 
> The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
Click to expand...

He that giveth, can take away.  The former's argument thusly is that we don't allow the government the right to take away that which they did not give in the first place.

The question of origin of said rights is moot.  The rights do exist, period.  The laws restricting government from taking away said rights is proof of their existence, period.  The laws that subsequently allowed state government to take away said rights with due process (see 14th) are also proof that said rights exist.  

For if they did not exist what the hell is being legislated?  A vacuum of nothingness in space?

The argument/question is akin to saying air does not exist because the Constitution does not declare it so.


----------



## dilloduck

> Both the expression of belief in traditional marriage and expression of support for gay rights fall within the concept of unalienable rights



Who says they do ? Where is this codified ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one.  I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The record says that I am asking you to repeat yourself because I refuse to repeat myself?
> 
> If you are half as smart as you think you are you will not only be able to refute my examples, you will be able to find them by searching for a simple Latin phrase. If, on the other hand, you aren't even as smart as I think you are, you won't even be able to find them. Feel free to prove me wrong, or actually make my point for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing yourself again. Read the first sentence of your post slowly and deliberately. Be careful of the verbs. They seem to trip you up. I bolded it for you.
> 
> I'm not attempting to be smart. Thats a hangup and lack of confidence you seem to have in yourself. I answered your question but you have not answered mine.  I dont need to provide you with a latin phrase. I only need to point out the lack of logic in your argument.  As usual you run and hide from providing anything because you have nothing.
Click to expand...


I do not have hangups. I have never once cared if people thought I was stupid simply because they cannot follow my logic. You, however, seem obsessed with proving that the fact I refuse to cater to your inability to disprove my previous arguments by arguing that the fact that I don't repeat myself means you are smarter than I am.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.
> 
> So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.
> 
> And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. * But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.*
> 
> The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.
> 
> The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He that giveth, can take away.  The former's argument thusly is that we don't allow the government the right to take away that which they did not give in the first place.
> 
> The question of origin of said rights is moot.  The rights do exist, period.  The laws restricting government from taking away said rights is proof of their existence, period.  The laws that subsequently allowed state government to take away said rights with due process (see 14th) are also proof that said rights exist.
> 
> For if they did not exist what the hell is being legislated?  A vacuum of nothingness in space?
Click to expand...


Cool--lets make a law that forbids the government from taking away rainbow colored unicorns and voila---we will have rainbow colored unicorns


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know when I'm in your head Quantum.   You start trying claim things you cant prove and attribute them to me.  So far you are the only one that believes aliens built the pyramids. Stop stalling and give me an example of a natural or unalienable right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im not the one talking about aliens.  Its obviously a stalling tactic Quantum.  Its ok but just know I know.
Click to expand...


I talk about aliens because I enjoy mocking absurd theories.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did one in three words, no one has refuted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just did.
Click to expand...


If you refuted it, you should be able to tell me what it is.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not the one talking about aliens.  Its obviously a stalling tactic Quantum.  Its ok but just know I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I talk about aliens because I enjoy mocking absurd theories.
Click to expand...


Like the theory of natural rights ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to life.
> The right to liberty.
> The right to property.
> 
> All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
Click to expand...


You have been unable to prove that rights are granted by government. If we ask you to supply evidence you simply declare that it is because it is. Perhaps you should consider actually proving that you are right instead of simply asserting that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

And, yes, I can prove that I am right, and will defend my position if you ever actually pull up one of my arguments and attack it based on its merits. If you continue to insist that the fact that I am not going back and repeating things I already said in this thread means you won the argument, feel free to declare yourself the winner of the debate and leave. That is what everyone else who argued with me did.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been unable to prove that rights are granted by government. If we ask you to supply evidence yo simply declare that it is because it is.
Click to expand...


not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.  I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, try to baffle them with BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.  I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, try to baffle them with BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
Click to expand...


My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to prove that rights are granted by government. If we ask you to supply evidence yo simply declare that it is because it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.
Click to expand...


Only the rights they decided to protect are arguably more important than your demand for a right to believe in rainbow colored unicorns.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically natural rights exist because someone believed in a unprovable theory?
> 
> Does the conflict between the words "natural" and "rights" alarm anyone?  I mean how can a right be natural since natural means without human intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the Founders viewed the rights they recognized as unalienable as God given.  Others used the term 'natural'.   We can be message board numb nuts and nitpick semantics.  Or we can be intelligent and actually consider the concept.
> 
> The Founders intended us to have a republic in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other totalitarian authority could dictate to any person who and what he/she must be and/or how he/she must speak, believe, or live.   It was to be a nation in which the people would have their unalienable rights secured from both anarchists and government, and then would be left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.
> 
> I posted a partial but pretty good list of what the Founders considered a 'natural' or 'God given' or 'unalienable' right to be.
> 
> *Can you argue with it?*  Or is everything on that list something that a person living in liberty can consider an unalienable right if there is liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its hard to argue without addressing semantics.  The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give.  All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights.  Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.
Click to expand...


Killing someone is not taking their right to life any more than clamping your hand over their mouth is taking their right to speech. The simple fact that you can infringe on preexisting rights is not evidence that they do not exist. That is supposed to be why we permit you to have a government, so that you can feel secure in your rights. Instead, you want to pretend the fact that you have a government means I do not have rights.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.  I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.
Click to expand...


A natural right of the various elected governments to take life, liberty, and property away with due process was not afforded until the 14th amendment.  Instead they provided limits on the federal government to do so in the form of the bill of restrictions on federal powers, aka bill of rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its hard to argue without addressing semantics.  The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give.  All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights.  Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.
> 
> So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.
> 
> And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. * But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.*
> 
> The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.
> 
> The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
Click to expand...


Where is the evidence that they don't? How do you explain free will in the absence of rights?


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to prove that rights are granted by government. If we ask you to supply evidence yo simply declare that it is because it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the rights they decided to protect are arguably more important than your demand for a right to believe in rainbow colored unicorns.
Click to expand...


Possibly but it certainly doesn't make them natural or inalienable.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A natural right of the various elected governments to take life, liberty, and property away with due process was not afforded until the 14th amendment.  Instead they provided limits on the federal government to do so in the form of the bill of restrictions on federal powers, aka bill of rights.
Click to expand...


elected governments have no natural rights whatsoever


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does air exist?  Sunshine?  Do you think?  Do you speak?  Do you hope?  Do you believe?  Do you hate?  Do you rejoice?  Do you take pleasure in work or play or achieving goals?  Do you value life?  Do you value liberty that allows you to be whomever and whatever you choose to be?  That is the proof that natural rights exist.    Many papal bulls and other government decrees have violated the natural rights of the people.  Bad people would deny other people their rights.  That is what the Constitution was intended to correct--a government that would recognize that people possess unalienable rights and that would not presume to assign rights to the people but would protect their rights that already existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want you to think I believe it was a bad concept so using the Dum Diversas was not the best example.  i do all of those things and yes I agree these things exist.  However, it seems as if natural rights exist solely because we have faith they exist which is a manmade construct. Is this what you are trying to convey?
Click to expand...


That was funny.

Just because you don't understand words is not evidence that everyone else uses them wrong. Faith is not something that exists in the absence of evidence, it would be insanity to think it does. Is that the entire problem here? Are we arguing with a person who is insane?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not an argument for the existence of God.  It is an argument for a concept.  Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did.  Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.
> 
> So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.
> 
> And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. * But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.*
> 
> The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.
> 
> The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence that they don't? How do you explain free will in the absence of rights?
Click to expand...


Easy--we are free to do whatever we want. We don't need a license or permit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Natural rights are nothing more than rights that certain people think are effectively non-negotiable when a government is set up and given power over the people.
> 
> The government must secure those rights, and must not deny them.
> 
> It's all theoretical.



Which would mean they exist without the government.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just told you what every one of them are in *three* sentences.  You wanted just *one*.  Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man  in _just_ three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man.  Bonus!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was hoping this is what you meant. Basically what you are telling me is that humans have natural rights because you or somebody else said so? Is this a correct assumption?
> 
> You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
> You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
> You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.
> 
> What natural rights do you have without the government there to protect you against someone bigger and stronger than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are confused, and wrong. The fact that people die, even at the hands of others, is not ipso facto evidence that the right to life does not exist. You really should go back and read the thread so you don't repeat the same mistakes other people have made. Alternately, you could arrogantly presume that you are the smartest person ever and pretend that all of your arguments are original.
Click to expand...


As usual you are deflecting from your inability to provide proof beyond the fact someone had a theory a long time ago. You keep making the same mistake in thinking your BS is actually convincing anyone you know anything at all about what you say.  Show me where natural rights exist Quantum.  Your theories nor anyone elses theories suffice as evidence. I want proof.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are nothing more than rights that certain people think are effectively non-negotiable when a government is set up and given power over the people.
> 
> The government must secure those rights, and must not deny them.
> 
> It's all theoretical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes---chosen and prioritized by a few elite who have decided that they just know better.
Click to expand...


Know better than what?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are nothing more than rights that certain people think are effectively non-negotiable when a government is set up and given power over the people.
> 
> The government must secure those rights, and must not deny them.
> 
> It's all theoretical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes---chosen and prioritized by a few elite who have decided that they just know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know better than what?
Click to expand...


than other people I guess-----an Arab might think that owning a herd of camels and a harem was his natural right


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was hoping this is what you meant. Basically what you are telling me is that humans have natural rights because you or somebody else said so? Is this a correct assumption?
> 
> You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
> You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
> You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.
> 
> What natural rights do you have without the government there to protect you against someone bigger and stronger than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are confused, and wrong. The fact that people die, even at the hands of others, is not ipso facto evidence that the right to life does not exist. You really should go back and read the thread so you don't repeat the same mistakes other people have made. Alternately, you could arrogantly presume that you are the smartest person ever and pretend that all of your arguments are original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you are deflecting from your inability to provide proof beyond the fact someone had a theory a long time ago. You keep making the same mistake in thinking your BS is actually convincing anyone you know anything at all about what you say.  Show me where natural rights exist Quantum.  Your theories nor anyone elses theories suffice as evidence. I want proof.
Click to expand...


He can't. There are no natural rights. He knows it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not the one talking about aliens.  Its obviously a stalling tactic Quantum.  Its ok but just know I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talk about aliens because I enjoy mocking absurd theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the theory of natural rights ?
Click to expand...


If it was absurd you would be able to mock it, all you have been able to do is argue that it isn't real because you don't believe in it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been unable to prove that rights are granted by government. If we ask you to supply evidence yo simply declare that it is because it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.
Click to expand...


So, rights exist outside the government. Glad to see you admitting I am right.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.  I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, try to baffle them with BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
Click to expand...


I dont really have to defend anything at all to have an open mind. I am sitting here open to you proving natural rights (which is an oxymoron) exist without man.  Please teach me by showing me proof. Theories dont count.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.  I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.
Click to expand...


You just said they were cherry picked. How do you pick something that isn't real?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said they were cherry picked. How do you pick something that isn't real?
Click to expand...


Simple----you choose a behavior and claim it to be natural and worthy of government protection.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying.  Its is just another example of how much thought went into this.  My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct.  Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist?  It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people.  How do you prove something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence that they don't? How do you explain free will in the absence of rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy--we are free to do whatever we want. We don't need a license or permit.
Click to expand...


We don't need government approval?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was hoping this is what you meant. Basically what you are telling me is that humans have natural rights because you or somebody else said so? Is this a correct assumption?
> 
> You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
> You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
> You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.
> 
> What natural rights do you have without the government there to protect you against someone bigger and stronger than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are confused, and wrong. The fact that people die, even at the hands of others, is not ipso facto evidence that the right to life does not exist. You really should go back and read the thread so you don't repeat the same mistakes other people have made. Alternately, you could arrogantly presume that you are the smartest person ever and pretend that all of your arguments are original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual you are deflecting from your inability to provide proof beyond the fact someone had a theory a long time ago. You keep making the same mistake in thinking your BS is actually convincing anyone you know anything at all about what you say.  Show me where natural rights exist Quantum.  Your theories nor anyone elses theories suffice as evidence. I want proof.
Click to expand...


Yes, because pointing out that you are wrong is simply me deflecting from the fact that I am right.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I talk about aliens because I enjoy mocking absurd theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the theory of natural rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was absurd you would be able to mock it, all you have been able to do is argue that it isn't real because you don't believe in it.
Click to expand...


You are doing the exact same thing however, you dont have a shred of evidence.  At least it can be said the evidence leans heavily to the side that natural rights are just a manmade construct and not floating in the air existing without humans.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence that they don't? How do you explain free will in the absence of rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy--we are free to do whatever we want. We don't need a license or permit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need government approval?
Click to expand...


of course not---why would we ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes---chosen and prioritized by a few elite who have decided that they just know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know better than what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> than other people I guess-----an Arab might think that owning a herd of camels and a harem was his natural right
Click to expand...


How would he be wrong?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I talk about aliens because I enjoy mocking absurd theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the theory of natural rights ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it was absurd you would be able to mock it, all you have been able to do is argue that it isn't real because you don't believe in it.
Click to expand...


Oh it's easy to mock it----my favorite is still claiming they exist because the government made a law about them.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Know better than what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> than other people I guess-----an Arab might think that owning a herd of camels and a harem was his natural right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would he be wrong?
Click to expand...


My point exactly---we are free to think and do whatever we want. I don't need someone to come up with a list of so called natural rights for me when I already have the freedom to do whatever I want.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.  I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont really have to defend anything at all to have an open mind. I am sitting here open to you proving natural rights (which is an oxymoron) exist without man.  Please teach me by showing me proof. Theories dont count.
Click to expand...


You claim that your disbelief in natural rights, even though you have absolutely no evidence to back up that belief, is proof they don't exist. You then demand that I overcome your unwillingness to accept the evidence by insisting that I prove that natural rights exist in three sentences or less. The fact that you are totally unwilling to go back and read the previous arguments, or even the arguments that are repeated upon demand, is all the evidence I need to prove your mind is closed. 

Feel free to prove me wrong my actually addressing the arguments laid out in defense of natural rights, and laying out all your evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just said they were cherry picked. How do you pick something that isn't real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple----you choose a behavior and claim it to be natural and worthy of government protection.
Click to expand...


Does that mean behavior is not real in your universe?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the theory of natural rights ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it was absurd you would be able to mock it, all you have been able to do is argue that it isn't real because you don't believe in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are doing the exact same thing however, you dont have a shred of evidence.  At least it can be said the evidence leans heavily to the side that natural rights are just a manmade construct and not floating in the air existing without humans.
Click to expand...


I don't need evidence that aliens didn't build the pyramids.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> than other people I guess-----an Arab might think that owning a herd of camels and a harem was his natural right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would he be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point exactly---we are free to think and do whatever we want. I don't need someone to come up with a list of so called natural rights for me when I already have the freedom to do whatever I want.
Click to expand...


Just in case Quantum misses it I now grant you the right to have freedom of choice.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just said they were cherry picked. How do you pick something that isn't real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple----you choose a behavior and claim it to be natural and worthy of government protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean behavior is not real in your universe?
Click to expand...


you pick a behavior that is not a real natural right and pretend it to be so


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy--we are free to do whatever we want. We don't need a license or permit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need government approval?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course not---why would we ?
Click to expand...


So, once again, you are arguing that rights exist without the government.

Yet you are still arguing with me because I insist they exist.


----------



## dilloduck




----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the theory of natural rights ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it was absurd you would be able to mock it, all you have been able to do is argue that it isn't real because you don't believe in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it's easy to mock it----my favorite is still claiming they exist because the government made a law about them.
Click to expand...

Then it is a good thing I never said that, isn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would he be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point exactly---we are free to think and do whatever we want. I don't need someone to come up with a list of so called natural rights for me when I already have the freedom to do whatever I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just in case Quantum misses it I now grant you the right to have freedom of choice.
Click to expand...


Just in case you missed it, he had that right before you granted. In other words, you are not the source of that  right, neither is the government.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need government approval?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course not---why would we ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, once again, you are arguing that rights exist without the government.
> 
> Yet you are still arguing with me because I insist they exist without government.
Click to expand...


you claim that there are natural right that exist without the government-----my claim is that there are no natural rights period. We are simple free to do whatever we wish. Nothing more need be said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple----you choose a behavior and claim it to be natural and worthy of government protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean behavior is not real in your universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you pick a behavior that is not a real natural right and pretend it to be so
Click to expand...


I am sure you have examples, I know I do. That doesn't change the fact that some rights are actually real.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont really have to defend anything at all to have an open mind. I am sitting here open to you proving natural rights (which is an oxymoron) exist without man.  Please teach me by showing me proof. Theories dont count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim that your disbelief in natural rights, even though you have absolutely no evidence to back up that belief, is proof they don't exist. You then demand that I overcome your unwillingness to accept the evidence by insisting that I prove that natural rights exist in three sentences or less. The fact that you are totally unwilling to go back and read the previous arguments, or even the arguments that are repeated upon demand, is all the evidence I need to prove your mind is closed.
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong my actually addressing the arguments laid out in defense of natural rights, and laying out all your evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I do have evidence. Natural means not man made.  Case closed. You have presented no evidence. You can expound theories all day long but that doesn't make them facts just because you believe them to be. stop stalling and provide me proof of a right that exists without man saying it does.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it was absurd you would be able to mock it, all you have been able to do is argue that it isn't real because you don't believe in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it's easy to mock it----my favorite is still claiming they exist because the government made a law about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it is a good thing I never said that, isn't it?
Click to expand...


someone else did---I'm glad--it was funny


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean behavior is not real in your universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you pick a behavior that is not a real natural right and pretend it to be so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you have examples, I know I do. That doesn't change the fact that some rights are actually real.
Click to expand...


Sure rights can be real. they just aren't natural. They are man made constructs


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont really have to defend anything at all to have an open mind. I am sitting here open to you proving natural rights (which is an oxymoron) exist without man.  Please teach me by showing me proof. Theories dont count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that your disbelief in natural rights, even though you have absolutely no evidence to back up that belief, is proof they don't exist. You then demand that I overcome your unwillingness to accept the evidence by insisting that I prove that natural rights exist in three sentences or less. The fact that you are totally unwilling to go back and read the previous arguments, or even the arguments that are repeated upon demand, is all the evidence I need to prove your mind is closed.
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong my actually addressing the arguments laid out in defense of natural rights, and laying out all your evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I do have evidence. Natural means not man made.  Case closed. You have presented no evidence. You can expound theories all day long but that doesn't make them facts just because you believe them to be. stop stalling and provide me proof of a right that exists without man saying it does.
Click to expand...


For the same of argument I will accept that as the definitive definition of natural. Now, all you have to do, is show me the man that actually made rights.

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point exactly---we are free to think and do whatever we want. I don't need someone to come up with a list of so called natural rights for me when I already have the freedom to do whatever I want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case Quantum misses it I now grant you the right to have freedom of choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it, he had that right before you granted. In other words, you are not the source of that  right, neither is the government.
Click to expand...


No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case Quantum misses it I now grant you the right to have freedom of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it, he had that right before you granted. In other words, you are not the source of that  right, neither is the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the hat right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
Click to expand...


Thanks for granting me the rights, bro !


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> you pick a behavior that is not a real natural right and pretend it to be so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have examples, I know I do. That doesn't change the fact that some rights are actually real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure rights can be real. they just aren't natural. They are man made constructs
Click to expand...


Which man made them? Show me evidence they did not exist before he made them. Explain why animals have the ability to chose, and have a sense of right and wring, given the fact that these are all made by man. Does that make man God?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case Quantum misses it I now grant you the right to have freedom of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it, he had that right before you granted. In other words, you are not the source of that  right, neither is the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
Click to expand...


Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy  than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have examples, I know I do. That doesn't change the fact that some rights are actually real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure rights can be real. they just aren't natural. They are man made constructs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which man made them? Show me evidence they did not exist before he made them. Explain why animals have the ability to chose, and have a sense of right and wring, given the fact that these are all made by man. Does that make man God?
Click to expand...


You know full well that a negative can't be proven. You made the claim that natural rights exist therefore you must present us with one. No  ---man is still not God.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the rights they decided to protect are arguably more important than your demand for a right to believe in rainbow colored unicorns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly but it certainly doesn't make them natural or inalienable.
Click to expand...


Says you.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it, he had that right before you granted. In other words, you are not the source of that  right, neither is the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy  than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.
Click to expand...



Now you think you man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.


----------



## Asclepias

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy  than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course not---why would we ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, once again, you are arguing that rights exist without the government.
> 
> Yet you are still arguing with me because I insist they exist without government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you claim that there are natural right that exist without the government-----my claim is that there are no natural rights period. We are simple free to do whatever we wish. Nothing more need be said.
Click to expand...


So all this has been you whining about use of the term natural right as a substitute for your preferred phrase free to do whatever we wish?  ROFL yeah your broad based phrase "free to do whatever we wish" is so much clearer than natural rights.  Who the hell granted you the freedom to do whatever you wish?  If you can't prove in three sentences that someone granted you that freedom then you are full of hot air.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the rights they decided to protect are arguably more important than your demand for a right to believe in rainbow colored unicorns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly but it certainly doesn't make them natural or inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you.
Click to expand...


DOH---I've only be debating that fact for days. Put up or shut up. I wanna see a natural or inalienable right.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case Quantum misses it I now grant you the right to have freedom of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it, he had that right before you granted. In other words, you are not the source of that  right, neither is the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
Click to expand...


The granting of rights is only necessary for some types of rights.  For example, patent rights require a grant.  But copyright does not.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly but it certainly doesn't make them natural or inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DOH---I've only be debating that fact for days. Put up or shut up. I wanna see a natural or inalienable right.
Click to expand...


No you don't. You want to pretend they don't exist by putting your hands over your ears and stomping up and down.

"Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."

For example, a natural right would be the right of a person to think and contemplate actions.  However, some actions when taken may require and/or be associated with legal rights.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you missed it, he had that right before you granted. In other words, you are not the source of that  right, neither is the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the hat right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for granting me the rights, bro !
Click to expand...


No problem bro.  Any time you need some more rights just let me know!


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the hat right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for granting me the rights, bro !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem bro.  Any time you need some more rights just let me know!
Click to expand...


It does help a lot if I'm doing something questionable. I just tell em you gave me the right to do it and I get a free pass.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOH---I've only be debating that fact for days. Put up or shut up. I wanna see a natural or inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't. You want to pretend they don't exist by putting your hands over your ears and stomping up and down.
> 
> "Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."
> 
> *For example, a natural right would be the right of a person to think and contemplate actions.*  However, some actions when taken may require and/or be associated with legal rights.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOH---I've only be debating that fact for days. Put up or shut up. I wanna see a natural or inalienable right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. You want to pretend they don't exist by putting your hands over your ears and stomping up and down.
> 
> "Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."
> 
> *For example, a natural right would be the right of a person to think and contemplate actions.*  However, some actions when taken may require and/or be associated with legal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.
Click to expand...


absolutely oxymorons ! I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding some other way to define them. I think they figured out that when people started to give plants and animals rights it was getting to look a little suspicious.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOH---I've only be debating that fact for days. Put up or shut up. I wanna see a natural or inalienable right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. You want to pretend they don't exist by putting your hands over your ears and stomping up and down.
> 
> "Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."
> 
> *For example, a natural right would be the right of a person to think and contemplate actions.*  However, some actions when taken may require and/or be associated with legal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.
Click to expand...


How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?  

Maybe that's the problem.  Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun.  In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.  

In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."  "She had every right to be angry."  

For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry.  That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.

Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.

An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people.  (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. You want to pretend they don't exist by putting your hands over your ears and stomping up and down.
> 
> "Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."
> 
> *For example, a natural right would be the right of a person to think and contemplate actions.*  However, some actions when taken may require and/or be associated with legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?
> 
> Maybe that's the problem.  Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun.  In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.
> 
> In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."  "She had every right to be angry."
> 
> For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry.  That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.
> 
> Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.
> 
> An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people.  (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)
Click to expand...


I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure rights can be real. they just aren't natural. They are man made constructs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which man made them? Show me evidence they did not exist before he made them. Explain why animals have the ability to chose, and have a sense of right and wring, given the fact that these are all made by man. Does that make man God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know full well that a negative can't be proven. You made the claim that natural rights exist therefore you must present us with one. No  ---man is still not God.
Click to expand...


Actually, since I am an educated person, I know it is actually possible to prove a negative. For example, science has conclusively that Aether does not exist. This would be impossible if you were right.

Proving Negatives

That said, you actually made the claim that rights come from man. Even if you were right about not being able to prove a negative I can still require you to prove your statement. Feel free to do so, in the meantime my questions to you serve as my proof that rights do not come from man, which, come to think of it, is another example of proving a negative.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just gave him the right. I am a man.   He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the right until I granted it.  Thats pretty much the point of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy  than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think you man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.
Click to expand...


I am not the one claiming that he, personally, granted a right that did not previously exist. That is an act of creation, something that is only possible of you are actually God. The fact that you are unable to actually follow that logic shows how absurd your claim is.

By the way, since you can grant rights, and they are not unalienable, feel free to revoke my right to speech, it would conclusively demonstrate that you actually are God, and shut me up, which would be a win win for you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy  than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.
Click to expand...


I am not the one repeating myself, am I? One would think that an infallible being would notice something like that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?
> 
> Maybe that's the problem.  Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun.  In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.
> 
> In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."  "She had every right to be angry."
> 
> For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry.  That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.
> 
> Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.
> 
> An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people.  (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
Click to expand...


Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?
> 
> Maybe that's the problem.  Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun.  In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.
> 
> In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."  "She had every right to be angry."
> 
> For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry.  That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.
> 
> Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.
> 
> An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people.  (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.
Click to expand...


Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.
Click to expand...


I know that, he is the idiot that thinks he can grant the right to free will to other people.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy  than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think you man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one claiming that he, personally, granted a right that did not previously exist. That is an act of creation, something that is only possible of you are actually God. The fact that you are unable to actually follow that logic shows how absurd your claim is.
> 
> By the way, since you can grant rights, and they are not unalienable, feel free to revoke my right to speech, it would conclusively demonstrate that you actually are God, and shut me up, which would be a win win for you.
Click to expand...


You must stay in a pretty confused state of mind if you think granting someone a right is godlike.  I can grant you the right to step on my lawn and I don't need god like powers to do so. 

BTW I will revoke your right to speech right after you show me an example of a natural right and where granting a right has anything to do with God.  You are digging yourself a hole Quantum.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?
> 
> Maybe that's the problem.  Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun.  In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.
> 
> In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."  "She had every right to be angry."
> 
> For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry.  That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.
> 
> Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.
> 
> An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people.  (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
Click to expand...


The problem isn't that the words don't make sense when put together.  The problem is your inaccurate assumption that rights must be granted.

Putting the definitions together..

A natural right is a right that exists in or is caused by nature and is not made or caused by humankind.

Because you don't believe a right can exist without a human granting it, you think a right can't exist that is in or caused by nature and is not made or cause by humankind.

Let go of your inaccurate assumption and "natural right" makes sense.  The right of a lion to become angry when a predator attacks it's cub does not require granting by a human.

Your use of the term freedom, to explain away natural rights merely means that freedom is a natural right.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?
> 
> Maybe that's the problem.  Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun.  In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.
> 
> In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."  "She had every right to be angry."
> 
> For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry.  That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.
> 
> Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.
> 
> An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people.  (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.
Click to expand...


Rights come from man since they are man made.  I grant you the right to breath.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?
> 
> Maybe that's the problem.  Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun.  In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.
> 
> In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."  "She had every right to be angry."
> 
> For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry.  That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.
> 
> Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.
> 
> An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people.  (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem isn't that the words don't make sense when put together.  The problem is your inaccurate assumption that rights must be granted.
> 
> Putting the definitions together..
> 
> A natural right is a right that exists in or is caused by nature and is not made or caused by humankind.
> 
> Because you don't believe a right can exist without a human granting it, you think a right can't exist that is in or caused by nature and is not made or cause by humankind.
> 
> Let go of your inaccurate assumption and "natural right" makes sense.  The right of a lion to become angry when a predator attacks it's cub does not require granting by a human.
> 
> Your use of the term freedom, to explain away natural rights merely means that freedom is a natural right.
Click to expand...


I disagree my position is an assumption or that it is inaccurate. I need some proof that it is inaccurate before I let go of it.

Using your definition of "right"



> a *moral or legal entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.



Both of these are man made constructs. "Entitlement" is definitely allowing or granting someone something.  

A lion does not have a right to get angry unless someone says so. It has the freedom or power to get angry. Freedom is not the same thing as right. A right by its very definition has to be granted.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem isn't that the words don't make sense when put together.  The problem is your inaccurate assumption that rights must be granted.
> 
> Putting the definitions together..
> 
> A natural right is a right that exists in or is caused by nature and is not made or caused by humankind.
> 
> Because you don't believe a right can exist without a human granting it, you think a right can't exist that is in or caused by nature and is not made or cause by humankind.
> 
> Let go of your inaccurate assumption and "natural right" makes sense.  The right of a lion to become angry when a predator attacks it's cub does not require granting by a human.
> 
> Your use of the term freedom, to explain away natural rights merely means that freedom is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree my position is an assumption or that it is inaccurate. I need some proof that it is inaccurate before I let go of it.
> 
> Using your definition of "right"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a *moral or legal entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both of these are man made constructs. "Entitlement" is definitely allowing or granting someone something.
> 
> A lion does not have a right to get angry unless someone says so. It has the freedom or power to get angry. Freedom is not the same thing as right. A right by its very definition has to be granted.
Click to expand...


Ok.  Assuming you are not kidding.

Where in the definition of right is grant of a right mentioned? Do you not understand the difference between the noun "grant" and the noun "right?"  Why don't you try to explain the difference between a grant of a right and a right.  If you can explain the difference you will see your mistake.


----------



## RKMBrown

grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)

Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted.  The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that, he is the idiot that thinks he can grant the right to free will to other people.
Click to expand...


If you listen to the authoritarians of the left and right long enough anyone could become entirely confused with regard to simple subjects like natural rights.  Authoritarians of both sides don't like the idea of freedom and natural rights.  Gives them nightmares to think what evils free people might do.

Orwellian thought police


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)
> 
> Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted.  The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.



To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.
Click to expand...


That's because they don't exist.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution claims no such thing.
> Disagree?
> Cite the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there you go
> 
> LOL  omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different
Click to expand...

The constitution is law, the declaration is not.
Significant difference.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
> You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
> You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.


The fact that you can do these things in no way means those rights do not exist absent a grant or a legal protection by the government.
In fact, that you can, absent government, violate my rights only proves that my rights exist independent of that government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking for something that has no bearing.  Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written.
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to choose to be wrong.
> There is no sound basis for your position that our government can grant anything, much less a right, without a legal mechamism that does so.  Fact of the matter is, ther is no body of law anywhere in our government that grants anyone the right to free speech, and so there is no way to soundly argue that said right was granted to us by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to avoid providing me with the definition of grant and where it says it has to be written. You have no basis at all for such a position.
Click to expand...

You deliberatly leave out the part where in order for -government- to grant sometning, it must do so through some mechamism of law.
As you continue to do this, it is clear you choose to be wrong.



> The Supreme Court has protected the granted right to free speech on several occasions.  It is stated in the Declaration of Independence as well.  The very fact that the Supreme Court has protected the right to free speech should tell you they granted it.


This is only true if "grant" can be defined as "the legal recognition of a legal protection mandated by law" -- which it cannot.  You are, therefore, wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to life.
> The right to liberty.
> The right to property.
> 
> All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.
> There ya go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist?
Click to expand...

The fact that the rights exist, as proven by the protections afforded to them,  absent any grant of those rights by the government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you think you man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one claiming that he, personally, granted a right that did not previously exist. That is an act of creation, something that is only possible of you are actually God. The fact that you are unable to actually follow that logic shows how absurd your claim is.
> 
> By the way, since you can grant rights, and they are not unalienable, feel free to revoke my right to speech, it would conclusively demonstrate that you actually are God, and shut me up, which would be a win win for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must stay in a pretty confused state of mind if you think granting someone a right is godlike.  I can grant you the right to step on my lawn and I don't need god like powers to do so.
> 
> BTW I will revoke your right to speech right after you show me an example of a natural right and where granting a right has anything to do with God.  You are digging yourself a hole Quantum.
Click to expand...


That is an easement, not a right, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights come from man since they are man made.  I grant you the right to breath.
Click to expand...


If you can grant it vie internet you can take it away vie the same medium. Feel free to prove you have the ability to grant rights by taking away my right to breathe. Are you going to do that before, or after, you take away my right to speak?


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to life.
> The right to liberty.
> The right to property.
> 
> All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist.
Click to expand...

The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
The government did not grant the right to free speech.
As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)
> 
> Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted.  The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
Click to expand...


Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.


As you choose to be wrong, you have not learned because you refuse to do so.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence?  Thats all I am asking for.  Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct?  What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
> The government did not grant the right to free speech.
> As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.
Click to expand...


Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't prove any natural rights exist.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
> The government did not grant the right to free speech.
> As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,
Click to expand...

My argument is perfectly sound; your criticism is non-sequitur.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
> The government did not grant the right to free speech.
> As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is perfectly sound; your criticism is non-sequitur.
Click to expand...


Speaking existed prior protections being offered to it. Speaking is natural yet not a right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)
> 
> Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted.  The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government. 

The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.  The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.
> 
> The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.
Click to expand...


It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is perfectly sound; your criticism is non-sequitur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking existed prior protections being offered to it. Speaking is natural yet not a right.
Click to expand...

Free speech is not a right?  
It appears the constitution disagrees with you.
Not sure how you got that one wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.
> 
> The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.


----------



## itfitzme

Listening said:


> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.



Because everything is by agreement.   And seeing as government is the only entity that can enforce those agreements, ....


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.
> 
> The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.
Click to expand...


I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.
Click to expand...

Nothing you said here negates anything in my statement.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.
> 
> 
> 
> I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing you said here negates anything in my statement.
Click to expand...


Sure it does-------speech is not a right of any kind----it is simply something we do


----------



## M14 Shooter

itfitzme said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
> 
> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ?  You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because everything is by agreement.   And seeing as government is the only entity that can enforce those agreements, ....
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
Government exists so that the people need not enforce those "agreements" themselves.
Absent government, enforcement of rights comes from the individual.
This is why you can shoot someone trying to kill you, rather than waiting for the police to do it.


----------



## itfitzme

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.
> 
> The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.
> Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.
Click to expand...


Absent of any government, you will quickly find you will not be able to say anything after your tounge has been cut out.   Of course, you will have the right to say what you have been told to say while being tortured.

Medieval Torture


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said here negates anything in my statement.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it does
Click to expand...

I stated that:

*Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.*

Expalin how your statement...

*I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.*

..negates this

When doing so, understand that I am talking about the right to say anyting I want and you are talking about the physical abilty to speak - inequal propositions.

Good luck.


----------



## M14 Shooter

itfitzme said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absent of any government, you will quickly find you will not be able to say anything after your tounge has been cut out.
Click to expand...

The fact that my rights can be violated absent the presence of any governent only proves that my rights exist absent any government.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you said here negates anything in my statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stated that:
> 
> *Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.*
> 
> Expalin how your statement...
> 
> *I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.*
> 
> ..negates this
> 
> When doing so, understand that I am talking about the right to say anyting I want and you are talking about the physical abilty to speak - inequal propositions.
> 
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


Wrong 
I am NOT referring to an ability to speak.
I simply speak---I need no permission, license or freedom. If some one wants to protect the content of what I say that's fine and dandy but it has no bearing on my speech. It's trying to say a dog has the right to bark.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one claiming that he, personally, granted a right that did not previously exist. That is an act of creation, something that is only possible of you are actually God. The fact that you are unable to actually follow that logic shows how absurd your claim is.
> 
> By the way, since you can grant rights, and they are not unalienable, feel free to revoke my right to speech, it would conclusively demonstrate that you actually are God, and shut me up, which would be a win win for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must stay in a pretty confused state of mind if you think granting someone a right is godlike.  I can grant you the right to step on my lawn and I don't need god like powers to do so.
> 
> BTW I will revoke your right to speech right after you show me an example of a natural right and where granting a right has anything to do with God.  You are digging yourself a hole Quantum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an easement, not a right, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God.
Click to expand...


An easement is a right but don't let that gaping hole in your logic stop you from thinking you know what you are talking about.



> A* right* of use over the property of another.


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.
> 
> 
> 
> As you choose to be wrong, you have not learned because you refuse to do so.
Click to expand...


Yet you choose to not provide an example of a right existing without man granting it. Furthermore you claim that other rights must be cited in order to be granted. You are all over the map.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Absent of any government, you will quickly find you will not be able to say anything after your tounge has been cut out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that my rights can be violated absent the presence of any governent only proves that my rights exist absent any government.
Click to expand...


close to the unicorn argument again---yelling "I have been violated" is evidence that you had a right ?


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.
> 
> 
> 
> As you choose to be wrong, you have not learned because you refuse to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you choose to not provide an example of a right existing without man granting it. Furthermore you claim that other rights must be cited in order to be granted. You are all over the map.
Click to expand...


desperation


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings
> 
> This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
> The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.
> 
> I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur.  On the contrary, natural law presupposes it:  _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_, _initial force-defensive force_.  The right of revolt, for crying out loud!
> 
> In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.
> 
> Governments _do_ universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human.  But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you?  And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly?  Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!
> 
> Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof?  These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain.  That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of _real_ criminality.
> 
> You are refuted.
Click to expand...


LOL  not hardly

Come up with a natural right yet ?


----------



## dilloduck

Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have natural as an adjective to mean this:
> 
> existing in or caused by nature; *not made or caused by humankind*.
> 
> I have right as a noun to mean this:
> 
> that which is *morally* correct, *just, or honorable*.
> 
> Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense.  Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural.  I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.
Click to expand...


*Right.  Natural law is not natural morality and, therefore embedded in nature?!

Once again for the peanuts in the cheap seats:*



RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.
Click to expand...


Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically.  A risibly foolish claim.   

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension _*is*_ grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.  

OP?  I moved on from the elementary concerns of the OP pages ago.   

*No.  Let's look at this rash of stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.
> 
> So how natural are human thoughts and actions ?  What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.
> 
> See above definition of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--_is_?
> .
> While *dilloduck's* talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct.  That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.
> 
> Jesus, Joseph, Mary!
> 
> _Natural law = natural morality_; _natural morality = natural law_.  The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable.  What is meant by _natural law_ is _natural morality_;  what is meant by _natural morality_ is _natural law_.  Same thing.  LOL!  You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Further, the term _laws of nature_ refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud!  _Natural law_ refers to . . . well, you know, duh, _natural morality_.
Click to expand...


*Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## dilloduck

Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?




*Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question?  You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.*

Zoom!  Right over your head.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question?  You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.*
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
Click to expand...


Wrongola------I'm arguing that they don't exist at all.

Try to keep up


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right



But that's a lie, isn't it?  On both counts.


*The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell*



> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's a lie, isn't it?  On both counts.
> 
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?

I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question?  You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.*
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrongola------I'm arguing that they don't exist at all.
> 
> Try to keep up
Click to expand...


Well, you need to do a better job than you've been doing, given the fact. . . .

So even the unabrigeable civil liberties as recognized by the government in the Bill of Rights, as well as the political rights and civil rights/protections of statutory and case law don't exist either?

Really? Since when?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question?  You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.*
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrongola------I'm arguing that they don't exist at all.
> 
> Try to keep up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you need to do a better job than you've been doing, given the fact. . . .
> 
> So even the unabrigeable civil liberties as recognized by the government in the Bill of Rights, as well as the political rights and civil rights/protections of statutory and case law don't exist either?
> 
> Really? Since when?
Click to expand...


Sure man has made laws to encourage certain behavior and restrict other behavior. There just isn't anything "natural" about them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's a lie, isn't it?  On both counts.
> 
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?
> 
> I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.
Click to expand...


So the first claim is false, right?  They have been identify and defined, right?  I identified and defined them, right?

You unwittingly conceded that when you say that, at very least, they are human rights supposedly thought of by men.

And with that you concede that fact that they exist.

The rest is your abstract semantics.

But of course, the innate rights are not derived from government.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Why dilloduck Refutes Himself and Substantiates the Imperatives of Natural Law*



dilloduck said:


> Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings
> 
> This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
> The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.
Click to expand...


That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.

I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur.  On the contrary, natural law presupposes it:  _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_, _initial force-defensive force_.  The right of revolt, for crying out loud!

In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.

Governments _do_ universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human, for example.  But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you?  And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly?  Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!  

Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof?  These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain.  That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of _real_ criminality.

You are refuted.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's a lie, isn't it?  On both counts.
> 
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?
> 
> I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the first claim is false, right?  They have been identify and defined, right?  I identified and defined them, right?
> 
> You unwittingly conceded that when you say that, at very least, they are human rights supposedly thought of by men.
> 
> And with that you concede that fact that they exist.
> 
> The rest is your abstract semantics.
> 
> But of course, the innate rights are not derived from government.
Click to expand...


Omg  what a desperate attempt at grasping some kind of victory. There are no innate rights and I concede nothing. Thinking about unicorns doesn't make them real.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must stay in a pretty confused state of mind if you think granting someone a right is godlike.  I can grant you the right to step on my lawn and I don't need god like powers to do so.
> 
> BTW I will revoke your right to speech right after you show me an example of a natural right and where granting a right has anything to do with God.  You are digging yourself a hole Quantum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an easement, not a right, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An easement is a right but don't let that gaping hole in your logic stop you from thinking you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A* right* of use over the property of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Still an easement.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings
> 
> This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
> The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.
> 
> I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur.  On the contrary, natural law presupposes it:  _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_, _initial force-defensive force_.  The right of revolt, for crying out loud!
> 
> In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.
> 
> Governments _do_ universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human.  But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you?  And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly?  Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!
> 
> Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof?  These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain.  That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of _real_ criminality.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL  not hardly
> 
> Come up with a natural right yet ?
Click to expand...


Come up with proof that they are man made yet?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.
> 
> I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur.  On the contrary, natural law presupposes it:  _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_, _initial force-defensive force_.  The right of revolt, for crying out loud!
> 
> In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.
> 
> Governments _do_ universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human.  But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you?  And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly?  Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!
> 
> Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof?  These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain.  That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of _real_ criminality.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  not hardly
> 
> Come up with a natural right yet ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come up with proof that they are man made yet?
Click to expand...


over and over-----who came up with the idea ?  Dogs ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?
> 
> I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first claim is false, right?  They have been identify and defined, right?  I identified and defined them, right?
> 
> You unwittingly conceded that when you say that, at very least, they are human rights supposedly thought of by men.
> 
> And with that you concede that fact that they exist.
> 
> The rest is your abstract semantics.
> 
> But of course, the innate rights are not derived from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omg  what a desperate attempt at grasping some kind of victory. There are no innate rights and I concede nothing. Thinking about unicorns doesn't make them real.
Click to expand...


LOL!  I don't need to do that as long as you keep refuting yourself like you did here:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 87 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  not hardly
> 
> Come up with a natural right yet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come up with proof that they are man made yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> over and over-----who came up with the idea ?  Dogs ?
Click to expand...


You're the one who refuted yourself and unwittingly proved their existence right here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=8910086#post8910086

 Are you a dog?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions*



dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. You want to pretend they don't exist by putting your hands over your ears and stomping up and down.
> 
> "Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."
> 
> *For example, a natural right would be the right of a person to think and contemplate actions.*  However, some actions when taken may require and/or be associated with legal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> absolutely oxymorons ! I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding some other way to define them. I think they figured out that when people started to give plants and animals rights it was getting to look a little suspicious.
Click to expand...


LOL!  One fallacious premise and subsequent straw man after another.


*"I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding [sic] some other way to define them."*

LOL!

The only desperation in sight is that of relativists trying to overthrow incontrovertible realities with embarrassingly fallacious doggerel. 


*"The terms 'natural rights' or 'inalienable rights' are oxymorons."* 

The only oxymoron here is the one that is _not_ explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way:  Natural rights are *not* abilities.  Freedoms are abilities.  Natural rights are something else.   

Natural rights *are*.  You don't have to *do* anything to _*have*_ them, *but* be born into nature. They are the inherent attributes and inherent expressions of *sentient beings* and *sentient beings* only.  They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a right to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce. 

Hence, only *sentient beings* can *have* them, *apprehend* them, *grant* rights of any kind or _*form*_ governments. 

Mere animals can't do any of these things. . . .

And why can't they do anything of these things?

Because they are not born into nature *with* and, therefore, do not _*possess*_ the inherent attributes and the inherent expressions of *sentient beings*.

Nope!  No need to appeal to God to demonstrate their reality in nature.  However, folks should never forget by Whom (*sentient being*) they are ultimately endowed, so as not to fallaciously equate them to the mere abilities of freedom and get all oxymoronically duh or confuse themselves self into thinking that animals somehow or another grant themselves rights.

Animals do not have any rights, but those that human beings, not God, *dilloduck*, might stupidly grant them beyond the concern of unnecessarily inhumane treatment, and the rights that we might grant them, obviously, are not natural rights of any kind as they would necessarily be administered and enforced by government.  Otherwise, animals are nothing more than natural resources or property.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  not hardly
> 
> Come up with a natural right yet ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come up with proof that they are man made yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> over and over-----who came up with the idea ?  Dogs ?
Click to expand...


Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come up with proof that they are man made yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> over and over-----who came up with the idea ?  Dogs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?
Click to expand...


Only in my dreams.  dilloduck has never awaken from his.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrongola------I'm arguing that they don't exist at all.
> 
> Try to keep up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you need to do a better job than you've been doing, given the fact. . . .
> 
> So even the unabrigeable civil liberties as recognized by the government in the Bill of Rights, as well as the political rights and civil rights/protections of statutory and case law don't exist either?
> 
> Really? Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure man has made laws to encourage certain behavior and restrict other behavior. There just isn't anything "natural" about them.
Click to expand...


Hey i get his angle now. Man is natural.  It was a riddle inside of a puzzle disguised as an enigma.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

gnarlylove said:


> But I dug out my old papers and have a few more thoughts on absolute capacities of human beings that might help convince you further that your position is false.



Okay, gnarlylove, I'm over it.  I was very annoyed, obviously, by the portion of my post that was taken way out of context by you.  What's annoying about that is that one has to waste reams of time and space by correcting distortions before one can even begin to refute/respond to things of actual substance.  It's just, well, annoying.

I read your entire post.  I'm sorry you had such a tough start in life, but the fact of the matter is that I don't come from privilege in the usual sense of that word, but I did not come from dirt poor rags or homelessness either.  I'm an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught.  I do work at homeless shelters and the like, so I do know something about it.

I did read the rest of your post and found your ideas to be interesting.  I agree with some of them, but not most.  But I wouldn't even dare touch your beliefs about God and Christianity beyond the pertinent particulars of the OP, and, in any event, have no desire to do so.

The only thing I would assert as I refer you back to my posts on the sociopolitical extrapolations from Christianity's ethical system of thought and Christianity's place in the history of natural law is that the problems you talk about, both real and imagined . . . well, they just ain't Christianity's fault or the fault of those who accurately applied its teachings to natural law.  Bottom line:  it's all about liberty.  What men have done with these truths is another matter.  Man's nature is corrupt, so he corrupts everything he touches.  Getting at the actuality of natural law and the rights thereof is the only way to see the necessity of limited government, which, other than the checks and balances of nature and God, is the most immediately practical check that all can see against human nature.  The rest is history.

I'll answer your charges regarding the state of man's mind and powers of apprehension tomorrow.

You're wrong as you could, and I can prove that quite readily without breaking a sweat.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an easement, not a right, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An easement is a right but don't let that gaping hole in your logic stop you from thinking you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A* right* of use over the property of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still an easement.
Click to expand...


Which is defined as a right.  Its ok. You can admit you didn't know.  You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come up with proof that they are man made yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> over and over-----who came up with the idea ?  Dogs ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?
Click to expand...


The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences?  It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told you what every one of them are in *three* sentences.  You wanted just *one*.  Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man  in _just_ three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man.  Bonus!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was hoping this is what you meant. Basically what you are telling me is that humans have natural rights because you or somebody else said so? Is this a correct assumption?
> 
> You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
> You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
> You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.
> 
> What natural rights do you have without the government there to protect you against someone bigger and stronger than you?
Click to expand...


Of course that's not a correct assumption.  The reason that the recognition of these rights goes back to the dawn man is the same reason that these three categories of rights have been recognized and asserted throughout recorded history:  They are innate.  If what you claim to believe were true, and I don't think you really believe it in your heart of hearts, one would expect history to be all over the place.  But it's not.  And those of us who have our eyes wide open can see the everyday, walk-in-the-park realities of natural law in human conduct and interaction, and can see the triadic, reoccurring theme without breaking a sweat, while the chaos that others see is nothing more than man's corruption and follies swirling around the truth.

Natural law and the rights thereof are absolute!

You can't transfer my rights or take them away at all with any of the actions you're talking about.  While you see and deal with the reality of these three categories of rights and their correlates at an instinctual level of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't grasp what they actually are at all.

The pertinent question that you have yet to ask yourself is the question arguably most famously asked by Aurelius:  what is the essence of the thing?  Strip away everything else.

Do you want to know the truth or not?

In any event, I'll show you precisely why they are absolute tomorrow as I utterly demolish gnarylove's claims about the state of man's mind and the powers of his apprehension.

In the meantime check this out.  You guys are refuting yourselves every time you post.  That's how real they are.  


*Why dilloduck Refutes Himself and Substantiates the Imperatives of Natural Law*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings
> 
> This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
> The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.
> M.D. Rawlings
> 
> This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
> The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.
Click to expand...


That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.

I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur.  On the contrary, natural law presupposes it:  _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_, _initial force-defensive force_.  The right of revolt, for crying out loud!

In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.

Governments _do_ universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human.  But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you?  And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly?  Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!  

Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof?  These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain.  That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of _real_ criminality.

You refuted yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> An easement is a right but don't let that gaping hole in your logic stop you from thinking you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still an easement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is defined as a right.  Its ok. You can admit you didn't know.  You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.
Click to expand...


An easement is defined as a limited and specific right which  allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.

So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions*
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> absolutely oxymorons ! I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding some other way to define them. I think they figured out that when people started to give plants and animals rights it was getting to look a little suspicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  One fallacious premise and subsequent straw man after another.
> 
> 
> *"I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding [sic] some other way to define them."*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> The only desperation in sight is that of relativists trying to overthrow incontrovertible realities with embarrassingly fallacious doggerel.
> 
> 
> *"The terms 'natural rights' or 'inalienable rights' are oxymorons."*
> 
> The only oxymoron here is the one that is _not_ explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way:  Natural rights are *not* abilities.  Freedoms are abilities.  Natural rights are something else.
> 
> Natural rights *are*.  You don't have to *do* anything to _*have*_ them, *but* be born into nature. They are the inherent attributes and inherent expressions of *sentient beings* and *sentient beings* only.  They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a right to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.
> 
> Hence, only *sentient beings* can *have* them, *apprehend* them, *grant* rights of any kind or _*form*_ governments.
> 
> Mere animals can't do any of these things. . . .
> 
> And why can't they do anything of these things?
> 
> Because they are not born into nature *with* and, therefore, do not _*possess*_ the inherent attributes and the inherent expressions of *sentient beings*.
> 
> Nope!  No need to appeal to God to demonstrate their reality in nature.  However, folks should never forget by Whom (*sentient being*) they are ultimately endowed, so as not to fallaciously equate them to the mere abilities of freedom and get all oxymoronically duh or confuse themselves self into thinking that animals somehow or another grant themselves rights.
> 
> Animals do not have any rights, but those that human beings, not God, *dilloduck*, might stupidly grant them beyond the concern of unnecessarily inhumane treatment, and the rights that we might grant them, obviously, are not natural rights of any kind as they would necessarily be administered and enforced by government.  Otherwise, animals are nothing more than natural resources or property.
Click to expand...


Your prattle is breathtaking in your sheer mastery of it. I must confess I am in awe at how easily it streams from your fingertips.



> The only oxymoron here is the one that is _not_ explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way:  *Natural rights are not abilities.  Freedoms are abilities.  Natural rights are something else*.



The bolded part is pretty much what I said except I specified that natural rights were man made.  Sounds like we are close to figuring this out.

Freedom is the ability to do something.  It can be taken but it is natural.

Rights by their very definition are granted and specifically granted by man therefore making them not natural.  

Inalienable means that which cannot be given or taken.  Rights are taken every time someone is killed.  They are only given by man since it is hocus pocus made up by man.

You cant show me where the proof appears that natural/inalienable rights exist without bringing man into the equation.

The evidence heavily supports the argument that rights are granted by man only and subsequently protected.  We have declarations of these rights written by men. That is are only evidence they even exist.  Where are the declarations of these "natural/inalienable rights" written by nature? 

Oops..... I forgot nature can't present written evidence of rights nor can nature give us rights because they are also inalienable which stops nature from giving them to us.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> over and over-----who came up with the idea ?  Dogs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.
Click to expand...


All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still an easement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is defined as a right.  Its ok. You can admit you didn't know.  You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *An easement is defined as a limited and specific right* which  allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.
> 
> So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?
Click to expand...


You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right.  Lets remind us both of what you said.



Quantum Windbag said:


> *That is an easement, not a right*, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God



Why are you contradicting yourself?  Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.
Click to expand...


You need to brush up on using a dictionary.  Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right.  if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.


----------



## beagle9

Man this OP is all over the place. Ok, so we have our naturally ((born with rights)) in which God had given unto us prior to our birthing right ?  Then we have our protection of those rights as charged unto those who understand these things, in that were also understandably given by God within the miracle of life itself, and this upon the experiences in which we all have seen as good and prosperous unto us.  Therefore those who are charged with this protection of, and they as God has commanded them to do also, shall make sure that our rights to live, and to eat, and to learn, and to grow in safety of, are "of course" protected as is commanded of our protectors to do so by God almighty himself through out the generations of the world, and that is found of course within the natural order of things in which we do know them to be.  

My belief is that it is written within us to do so as human beings created by God, to always protect the rights of those who are not yet able to protect those rights in which they are then born with, and in which they have been given prior to being born with also, It is that we shall do this for God whom hath done these things for us in which we do marvel over always because it is right, and in this understanding of these things in which we do know, and in which we have seen before our very eyes, has brought forth great results in the righteousness for which has covered the whole world over in our sight of, and also within our experience of. 

This has allowed us to thrive and to grow while in their's (our parents) care. Once we expereince these things, and the benefits from them, then we are to also do the same for those who are among us just as well in life. It is especially to be upheld for those for whom have not yet come forth into the world, but are yet standing at the doorway ready to enter in (i.e. the unborn child), in which has also thee right to be protected as we understand such a right to be in life, and for which we do know it to be or that we should know it to be if we don't know it to be. 

A baby has a right to be protected in the womb prior to birth is my opinion, and it is a God given right in which the mother understands or should understand per her being charged of this duty in which is built into her own DNA as a woman who has been charged to bare this responsibility, and who is to bare this understanding in her life as found in the way in which it has been charged naturally of her to do so. 

A woman who denies herself of these understandings and things, and some how seperates herself of these understandings in which comes naturally unto her, is a woman that has lost her way in life or has been influenced by another in confusion of or has experienced trama that has made her incapable of rational thought due to her life experiences that are different some how from others who are just like her in gender, but are not like her in thought any longer. How it happens unto a person is anyones guess, and especially if we do not know what has taken place in another persons life like this.  I think that the pressures of an unstable enviroment can & do on many occassions lead to the many situations that we have a hard time understanding for ourselves in life.  I mean unless we are close enough to it or do experience the same things also in life, and in which has gone terribly wrong for another in which we have survied ourselves also, then we can only serve to help by finding out what takes place, and then to help the person at all points available as due to our learning of these things in which causes one to get off course in life.  

Such things can cause harm to another in worse case senario's (directly or indirectly), so it is that we should be wise in the caring of all those who suffer the things that we know are not normal, and in which we know them not to be normal. We should try always to help those who are willing to be treated once they come to us for whom are learned and wise in these things, and in which they would therefore ask for our help as trained specialist in such fields of expertise. We would be sought after in life by them, and that is the first step along with a great one if help can be given unto them who have become lost in life. 

Many cases are seemingly on the rise today in the world, because confusion is becoming king again as the world seemingly moves away from the God for whom they once knew, and now hap hazzardly worships the creature instead.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)
> 
> Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted.  The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
Click to expand...


The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness. 

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.  

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is defined as a right.  Its ok. You can admit you didn't know.  You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *An easement is defined as a limited and specific right* which  allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.
> 
> So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right.  Lets remind us both of what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That is an easement, not a right*, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you contradicting yourself?  Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.
Click to expand...


I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.

Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on using a dictionary.  Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right.  if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.
Click to expand...


Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?
> 
> I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the first claim is false, right?  They have been identify and defined, right?  I identified and defined them, right?
> 
> You unwittingly conceded that when you say that, at very least, they are human rights supposedly thought of by men.
> 
> And with that you concede that fact that they exist.
> 
> The rest is your abstract semantics.
> 
> But of course, the innate rights are not derived from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omg  what a desperate attempt at grasping some kind of victory. There are no innate rights and I concede nothing. Thinking about unicorns doesn't make them real.
Click to expand...


I have a natural right to grant myself the right to call you out as full of poo for your inaccurate statement that you concede nothing.  For if you concede all of your natural rights, then you have conceded something.  If there were no such thing as a natural right then there could be nothing for you to concede by stating your concession. Your statement that they don't exist is fallacious if only because you have conceded their existence in making your statement.  Further, your accusation that even if they did exist it would only be a belief in unicorns, is a pitiful attempt at deflection. Numerous substantive natural rights have been presented to you, of which you ignored all and subsequently deflected away with insulting remarks.  IOW you are a Troll.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on using a dictionary.  Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right.  if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.
Click to expand...


It all comes under the banner of "I don't want to believe it, therefore it isn't so" kind of thing.  Numerous examples and definitions of 'natural rights' have now been provided on this thread and all have been summarily dismissed and ignored by the "I don't want to believe it; therefore it isn't so" crowd.

All of us do believe in gravity because it is not reasonable not to believe in gravity.  And we believe because we have been taught about it and have observed for ourselves what it does.  If only those who are so damned gung ho to disbelieve and deny the obvious re natural rights would use the same criteria to evaluate that.

The "is too - is not" back and forth page after page after page, and refusal to discuss the concept in any kind of comprehensive manner, is really boring.  And makes people look pretty clueless.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)
> 
> Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted.  The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
Click to expand...


Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate. 

The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately. 

'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on using a dictionary.  Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right.  if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.
Click to expand...


No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.
> 
> 'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.
Click to expand...

I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away.  Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away.  Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *An easement is defined as a limited and specific right* which  allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.
> 
> So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right.  Lets remind us both of what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That is an easement, not a right*, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you contradicting yourself?  Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.
> 
> Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.
Click to expand...


You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right.  You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.

I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written.  Can you do that?  As I said before, I grant you the right to breath.  See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.

BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right.  Lets remind us both of what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you contradicting yourself?  Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.
> 
> Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right.  You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.
> 
> I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written.  Can you do that?  As I said before, I grant you the right to breath.  See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.
> 
> BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?
Click to expand...

I think he was trying to argue that the definition of natural rights is god provided rights, thus only god could possible grant them, however since he thinks god is a fairy tale all discussions of natural rights are equivalent to unicorns.  

IOW he was also using the wrong definition of "natural rights."


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)
> 
> Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted.  The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
Click to expand...


There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to brush up on using a dictionary.  Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right.  if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.
Click to expand...



Actually, all it proves is that there is a common force acting on each object. If you are in a ship accelerating toward the center of the earth at 2Gs and drop an object it will fall in a line that is directly opposite the force acting on it, which is away from the center of the Earth. Einstein is the one that proved that.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.
> 
> 'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.
Click to expand...


I don't have strong objection to your making that distinction but for me God-given, natural, or unalienable rights are all the same thing.  All are what we are and do if there was nothing or nobody to say that we cannot--who and what we are regardless of any other influences in our lives.  It is the ability to do, without any interference, that which requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not interfere with anybody else's unalienable/natural/God-given rights.

When my unalienable rights are secured, and so long as I violate nobody else's unalienable rights, nobody can tell me that I cannot believe in God or alien abductions or the flying spaghetti monster or that I must believe in such things.  I can express my opinion that the king or the President or the pope or my neighbor is an idiot with impunity and I can also praise whomever I wish without fear of retaliation.  I can use my property as I see fit, conduct my business as I want, and live my life as I choose and I don't have to conform to anybody else's opinion about what is right and wrong, just or unjust, correct or improper, honorable or racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted/prejudiced etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.
> 
> 'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.
Click to expand...


Maybe we are finally getting somewhere.  Where did you find that definition of inalienable rights?  The one I have is an oxymoron.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.
> 
> 'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away.  Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away.  Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.
Click to expand...


That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means _there's no way to do it_. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just _designate_ a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.

I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited _natural_ rights (life, liberty, etc...) _after_ claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.



> _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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed_


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all it proves is that there is a common force acting on each object. If you are in a ship accelerating toward the center of the earth at 2Gs and drop an object it will fall in a line that is directly opposite the force acting on it, which is away from the center of the Earth. Einstein is the one that proved that.
Click to expand...


It is utterly amazing how unaware you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right.  Lets remind us both of what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you contradicting yourself?  Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.
> 
> Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right.  You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.
> 
> I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written.  Can you do that?  As I said before, I grant you the right to breath.  See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.
> 
> BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?
Click to expand...


I said that because, in the context of this thread, it isn't. Neither is voting. They are entitlements granted by other people, and can be taken away. They only exist when there is both a framework in place to make them real, and an actual grant from someone. 

Natural rights, on the other hand, exist regardless of whether a frame exist to make them real, and no one to grant them. The proof of that is that, despite the fact that I have personally challenged you, among others, multiple times to provide a single example of any government in history granting anyone a natural right, or taking it away from them, all you have dome is deflect by insisting that rights means entitlements.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.
> 
> 'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away.  Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away.  Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means _there's no way to do it_. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just _designate_ a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.
> 
> I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited _natural_ rights (life, liberty, etc...) _after_ claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Here is where the problem comes in.  What proof do we have that a *conscious* creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.
> 
> Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right.  You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.
> 
> I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written.  Can you do that?  As I said before, I grant you the right to breath.  See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.
> 
> BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was trying to argue that the definition of natural rights is god provided rights, thus only god could possible grant them, however since he thinks god is a fairy tale all discussions of natural rights are equivalent to unicorns.
> 
> IOW he was also using the wrong definition of "natural rights."
Click to expand...


No, I am talking to an idiot who thinks he can grant rights like God. That does not in any way indicate that I believe that rights come from God. In fact, I specifically pointed out earlier that my belief in God is irrelevant to the discussion about rights, but no one ever actually reads the thread.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.
> 
> Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right.  You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.
> 
> I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written.  Can you do that?  As I said before, I grant you the right to breath.  See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.
> 
> BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that because, in the context of this thread, it isn't. Neither is voting. They are entitlements granted by other people, and can be taken away. They only exist when there is both a framework in place to make them real, and an actual grant from someone.
> 
> Natural rights, on the other hand, exist regardless of whether a frame exist to make them real, and no one to grant them. *The proof of that is that*, despite the fact that I have personally challenged you, among others, multiple times to provide a single example of any government in history granting anyone a natural right, or taking it away from them, all you have dome is deflect by insisting that rights means entitlements.
Click to expand...


You are going to fall down if you back pedal any faster. 

Lets try this again.  

You objected to me saying I could grant you the right to step on my lawn.  

You said that was not a right but an easement.

You were wrong. An easement is a right.

I called you on it.

You have an issue with admitting you were wrong.

Grow up and lets get back on topic.

I wish you would have expounded on your bolded statement instead of wandering off again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
Click to expand...


 The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.
> 
> And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.
Click to expand...


I did read.  You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong.  I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them.  Can you do that?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
Click to expand...


Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself.  You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.

The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity.  To deny them is ridiculous.  For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly.  That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the rate at which objects fall with respect to the mass of the objects does, and that was the point Newton made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, all it proves is that there is a common force acting on each object. If you are in a ship accelerating toward the center of the earth at 2Gs and drop an object it will fall in a line that is directly opposite the force acting on it, which is away from the center of the Earth. Einstein is the one that proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is utterly amazing how unaware you are.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, did I get wrong? Keep in mind that Einstein actually laid out the math that explains this, that I can actually show it to you, and that every single experiment conducted since he first published his theories proves he is right, but feel free to point out what I am unaware of.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away.  Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away.  Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means _there's no way to do it_. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just _designate_ a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.
> 
> I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited _natural_ rights (life, liberty, etc...) _after_ claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where the problem comes in.  What proof do we have that a *conscious* creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?
Click to expand...


So you admit that the problem is that you cannot read, dblack never said that there is a creator.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You specifically said an easement was not a right. Dont you see your words quoted above or are you afraid to look up at them? An easement is a right.  You are flat out wrong and having a hard time dealing with the impact of it. Yes an easement is not a natural right but thats not what you were discussing at the time. Your attempt to deflect from your ignorance of what easement means is funny.
> 
> I dont have to be God to grant rights. Please show me where that is written.  Can you do that?  As I said before, I grant you the right to breath.  See? No god or religion needed to do what I just did.
> 
> BTW you still have yet to show me where these natural rights are written down by nature or proof they exist besides what man says. Can you accomplish that task without wandering off and winding up sticking your foot in your mouth again like you did about the easement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said that because, in the context of this thread, it isn't. Neither is voting. They are entitlements granted by other people, and can be taken away. They only exist when there is both a framework in place to make them real, and an actual grant from someone.
> 
> Natural rights, on the other hand, exist regardless of whether a frame exist to make them real, and no one to grant them. *The proof of that is that*, despite the fact that I have personally challenged you, among others, multiple times to provide a single example of any government in history granting anyone a natural right, or taking it away from them, all you have dome is deflect by insisting that rights means entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going to fall down if you back pedal any faster.
> 
> Lets try this again.
> 
> You objected to me saying I could grant you the right to step on my lawn.
> 
> You said that was not a right but an easement.
> 
> You were wrong. An easement is a right.
> 
> I called you on it.
> 
> You have an issue with admitting you were wrong.
> 
> Grow up and lets get back on topic.
> 
> I wish you would have expounded on your bolded statement instead of wandering off again.
Click to expand...


I never objected to that, I pointed out the proper term. You took offense, and insist that because you can entitle people to step on your lawn, and that you only accept the definition of rights as entitlements, that proves that all rights are entitlements.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.
> 
> And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did read.  You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong.  I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them.  Can you do that?
Click to expand...


Yes. In fact I already have, at least once in response to one of your posts.

Can you provide evidence that rights only exist because you, or any other man you can name, say so?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself.  You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.
> 
> The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity.  To deny them is ridiculous.  For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly.  That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.
Click to expand...


Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. More or less the observation I've been trying to inject into this debate.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that there is a third distinction that the OP itself conflates, namely that between inalienable rights and natural rights. It's my contention, admittedly not well-supported by the general literature on the topic, that there is an important difference between the two, and that Jefferson chose 'inlienable' - not 'natural' - deliberately.
> 
> 'I(u)nalienable rights' simply refers to the innate capacity for free will that all human minds share, whereas natural rights thinking attempts to justify how and why the exercise of that free will should be respected by society.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away.  Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away.  Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means _there's no way to do it_. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just _designate_ a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.
> 
> I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited _natural_ rights (life, liberty, etc...) _after_ claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



That is a valid point. I think you are wrong that that is what he was doing, but it is actually a valid point.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are unwilling to read in no way proves that there is no evidence, it just proves you won't read.
> 
> And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide actual evidence that the rights I am talking about only exist because someone granted them to another person. I find it amusing, in a sad way, that someone who can offer absolutely no evidence to support his position refuses to even examine any evidence counter to his beliefs. It reminds me of those book burning Inquisitors who burned heretics at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did read.  You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong.  I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them.  Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. In fact I already have, at least once in response to one of your posts.
> 
> Can you provide evidence that rights only exist because you, or any other man you can name, say so?
Click to expand...


No Quantum you havent. All you have succeeded in doing is sticking your foot in your mouth trying to achieve some kind of pointless victory.  Others are earnestly debating trying to work this out.

I already granted you the right to breath. Says so right here in my post. Can you provide the evidence rights exist without man being involved?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means _there's no way to do it_. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just _designate_ a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.
> 
> I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited _natural_ rights (life, liberty, etc...) _after_ claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where the problem comes in.  What proof do we have that a *conscious* creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the problem is that you cannot read, dblack never said that there is a creator.
Click to expand...


You should really give it up dude.  Why are you so clueless?  Who said Dblack said anything?  Look up at what he quoted.  Maybe one day you will learn to breath for a couple of seconds before responding off of emotion.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point in using inalienable rights was to cover/include both natural rights and granted rights that can't be taken or given away.  Where natural rights are by definition inalienable, some granted rights can be taken away.  Thus if you want to include some granted rights that can never be taken away you say inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means _there's no way to do it_. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just _designate_ a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.
> 
> I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited _natural_ rights (life, liberty, etc...) _after_ claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where the problem comes in.  What proof do we have that a *conscious* creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?
Click to expand...


None. Why is that a problem? The Creator references were simply a reference to their understanding of reality - as God's creation. The only relevant matter here is the nature of the human mind, regardless of how it was created.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read.  You dont know what you are talking about and you are wrong.  I dont have to prove you wrong until you have provided proof of the existence of rights in the absence of man defining them.  Can you do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. In fact I already have, at least once in response to one of your posts.
> 
> Can you provide evidence that rights only exist because you, or any other man you can name, say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Quantum you havent. All you have succeeded in doing is sticking your foot in your mouth trying to achieve some kind of pointless victory.  Others are earnestly debating trying to work this out.
> 
> I already granted you the right to breath. Says so right here in my post. Can you provide the evidence rights exist without man being involved?
Click to expand...


I see you still believe you are God.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where the problem comes in.  What proof do we have that a *conscious* creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the problem is that you cannot read, dblack never said that there is a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should really give it up dude.  Why are you so clueless?  Who said Dblack said anything?  Look up at what he quoted.  Maybe one day you will learn to breath for a couple of seconds before responding off of emotion.
Click to expand...


Look at what he said about the quote. All his other posts in the thread. Yet, for some reason, you think the problem is that he can't prove God exists, even though he doesn't believe the rights come from God.

Like I said, you can't, or won't, read.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the more popular interpretation, but I think it misses the boat - and ultimately doesn't make sense. Unalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't" be take away. It means _there's no way to do it_. There's no way to separate a person from the right or vice-versa. We can't just _designate_ a granted rights as 'unalienable'; being unalienable is existential. Granted rights can certainly be separated.
> 
> I think unalienable rights are a more fundamental than natural rights, which is why Jefferson places his list of the commonly cited _natural_ rights (life, liberty, etc...) _after_ claiming the self-evident unalienable rights and prefaces it with "among these". He's suggesting that there will be some (but not all) inalienable rights that we want to protect with government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where the problem comes in.  What proof do we have that a *conscious* creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None. Why is that a problem? The Creator references were simply a reference to their understanding of reality - as God's creation. The only relevant matter here is the nature of the human mind, regardless of how it was created.
Click to expand...


There are a couple of problems with it.  Lets see...

1. Rights (noun) are defined as:

a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

2. That means someone would have to be conscious to grant them to us.

3. That also means in additon that someone would need to be conscience to even think these rights up.

4. Inalienable is defined as:

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

5. All "rights" can be taken by simply killing someone.

6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind.  If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?

7. natural is defined as 

not manmade.


----------



## Foxfyre

The dictionary definition in 2014 is likely to be irrelevent to what a term meant to those who used it in 1776.

How we define a 'right' or 'natural right' or 'god given right' or 'unalienable' right is likely to be irrelevent to what the Founders intended or the philosophers who preceded them intended when they utilized those terms(s).

So the numbnuts will split hairs and focus on semantics and argue what can and cannot be with our 21st understanding.  The thinkers and serious scholars will explore the concept as the Founders intended it to be understood and evaluate it on its own merits or lack thereof.


----------



## Foxfyre

Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.

Assignment:  What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?




> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and* to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,* a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> *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. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *&#8212; 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where the problem comes in.  What proof do we have that a *conscious* creator exists and if one does where is the proof that creator granted us rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None. Why is that a problem? The Creator references were simply a reference to their understanding of reality - as God's creation. The only relevant matter here is the nature of the human mind, regardless of how it was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a couple of problems with it.  Lets see...
> 
> 1. Rights (noun) are defined as:
> 
> a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
> 
> 2. That means someone would have to be conscious to grant them to us.
Click to expand...


That's one way to define it. A better characterization, in my view would be: 





> When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use. -- James A. Sadowsky, S.J., _Private Property and Collective Ownership_



This is why agreeing on definitions is so vital to the conversation. Even by your definition, the use of entitlement doesn't imply anyone must grant it to them - only that they must not interfere. The key point here, that is that the right is intact even if no one is around to "grant" it.



> 4. Inalienable is defined as:
> 
> unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
> 
> 5. All "rights" can be taken by simply killing someone.



Inseparable is a better connotation. Inalienable doesn't mean indestructible. It means it's inherent to the existence of whatever it's attached to. As long as a human mind is alive, it has free will. Indeed, that's pretty much how we define consciousness, and consider people who are brain-dead, or in an unconscious, vegetative state, to not be fully 'human'.



> 6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind.  If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?



Nothing at all.


----------



## Listening

I can't keep up with you guys.

Sorry.

There has been some very good back-and-forth here.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Assignment:  What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and* to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,* a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> *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. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *&#8212; 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...


This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:



> *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. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *



-- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --

But in my view, a better reading would be:

-- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights  --

Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We _might_ claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
Click to expand...

When a new born child looks at you and smiles for the first time, it should be proof enough to you that the child was born with the ability to feel kindness and know kindness when it is present around him or her. Now to deny that child it's God given right afterwards, otherwise for it to feel these things in which the child has been given the right to do or to try and take that from the child afterwards would be a sin of a great maginitude, and therefore it would constitute an evil of a great maginitude that shall be delt with come the judgement. It is that we recoginize life itself as a right that has been granted unto us by God as it is written, and also it is by our witness of in these things that are before us, in which we cannot deny or escape from our very own eyes in seeing or from our very own feelings in which are a part of our own unique make up in life that was granted onto us just as well.  Where there is not God, then of course there is not life. We are given of many attributes before our awakening, and once we have awaken these attributes come shining like a star that fills the whole room with light upon those whom hold the very miracle of life within their very own arms in witness there of.

After birth it is that the new life is protected in respect to the creator, and also in respect to us being created by the one that has charged us in the protection of this life or in the future protections of his creation that will be needed in accordance with his will upon this earth therefore as it should be.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself.  You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.
> 
> The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity.  To deny them is ridiculous.  For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly.  That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?
Click to expand...


And there you go again.  You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right.  The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate.  A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Assignment:  What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and* to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,* a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> *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.  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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --
> 
> But in my view, a better reading would be:
> 
> -- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights  --
> 
> Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We _might_ claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.
Click to expand...


So what would the difference be?  Is a right not a right even if somebody bigger, stronger, meaner etc. denies your free exercise of it?  That is what I believe the Founders intended.  If there is to be liberty, then all much be allowed whatever occurs to them 'naturally' and those rights must be regarded as unalienable--and based on the language of the Declaration, I take their intent is that those terms "natural rights - God given rights  - unalienable rights" as interchangeable, all one and the same.

And the purpose of government is to recognize and secure those rights so that all can enjoy the blessings of liberty as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself.  You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.
> 
> The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity.  To deny them is ridiculous.  For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly.  That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go again.  You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right.  The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate.  A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.
Click to expand...


Who determined this ?


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Assignment:  What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --
> 
> But in my view, a better reading would be:
> 
> -- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights  --
> 
> Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We _might_ claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what would the difference be?  Is a right not a right even if somebody bigger, stronger, meaner etc. denies your free exercise of it?  That is what I believe the Founders intended.  If there is to be liberty, then all much be allowed whatever occurs to them 'naturally' and those rights must be regarded as unalienable--and based on the language of the Declaration, I take their intent is that those terms "natural rights - God given rights  - unalienable rights" as interchangeable, all one and the same.
> 
> And the purpose of government is to recognize and secure those rights so that all can enjoy the blessings of liberty as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


The founders were very selective and chose which behaviors they were going to protect.  This is why they aren't natural. They were selected by men out of a multitude of natural behaviors and did so because these certain behaviors had been restricted in the recent past. Notice that they did not chose to protect everything that man does naturally.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go again.  You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right.  The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate.  A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who determined this ?
Click to expand...


I did.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:
> 
> 
> 
> -- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --
> 
> But in my view, a better reading would be:
> 
> -- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights  --
> 
> Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We _might_ claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what would the difference be?  Is a right not a right even if somebody bigger, stronger, meaner etc. denies your free exercise of it?  That is what I believe the Founders intended.  If there is to be liberty, then all much be allowed whatever occurs to them 'naturally' and those rights must be regarded as unalienable--and based on the language of the Declaration, I take their intent is that those terms "natural rights - God given rights  - unalienable rights" as interchangeable, all one and the same.
> 
> And the purpose of government is to recognize and secure those rights so that all can enjoy the blessings of liberty as expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders were very selective and chose which behaviors they were going to protect.  This is why they aren't natural. They were selected by men out of a multitude of natural behaviors and did so because these certain behaviors had been restricted in the recent past. Notice that they did not chose to protect everything that man does naturally.
Click to expand...


They were not at all selective in which behaviors they were going to protect.  They were so determined that government would have no ability to assign rights but only the power to defend rights, that the federalists  pretty much had to be bullied into including a Bill of Rights specifing some things the anti-federalists deemed necessary to prevent the new republic from sliding right back into the authoritarian kind of government the Constitution was intended to prevent.  It certainly was not intended to cover all the unalienable rights the Founders saw as unalieanble rights.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> Notice that they did not chose to protect everything that man does naturally.


Which is it, you are so completely clueless so as to believe that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not mean everything man could possibly want to do other than to harm others.  Or you are again acting as Satan's disciple trying to again deflect the conversation to one where liberty means the power to murder people.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> The dictionary definition in 2014 is likely to be irrelevent to what a term meant to those who used it in 1776.
> 
> How we define a 'right' or 'natural right' or 'god given right' or 'unalienable' right is likely to be irrelevent to what the Founders intended or the philosophers who preceded them intended when they utilized those terms(s).
> 
> So the numbnuts will split hairs and focus on semantics and argue what can and cannot be with our 21st understanding.  The thinkers and serious scholars will explore the concept as the Founders intended it to be understood and evaluate it on its own merits or lack thereof.



So exactly how do you know what the founders intended?  Are the founders human?  What proof did they exhibit that makes you think they were correct?  No need call anyone names. A serious scholar such as yourself should know that right?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dictionary definition in 2014 is likely to be irrelevent to what a term meant to those who used it in 1776.
> 
> How we define a 'right' or 'natural right' or 'god given right' or 'unalienable' right is likely to be irrelevent to what the Founders intended or the philosophers who preceded them intended when they utilized those terms(s).
> 
> So the numbnuts will split hairs and focus on semantics and argue what can and cannot be with our 21st understanding.  The thinkers and serious scholars will explore the concept as the Founders intended it to be understood and evaluate it on its own merits or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So exactly how do you know what the founders intended?  Are the founders human?  What proof did they exhibit that makes you think they were correct?  No need call anyone names. A serious scholar such as yourself should know that right?
Click to expand...


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begin with the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Assignment:  What specifically were the Founders saying in these paragraphs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --
> 
> But in my view, a better reading would be:
> 
> -- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights  --
> 
> Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We _might_ claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what would the difference be?
Click to expand...


The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.
> 
> You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant.  IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all.  Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.
> 
> There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.
> 
> If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an element of stubbornness but it is only due to the lack of proof for your viewpoint.  If someone can present something solid I can test or observe in action i have no problem changing my point of view in the light of new information.  I'm going by the definition as used in the dictionary. One viewpoint is that these natural rights exist without the aid of man acknowledging them.  How is this possible if no one can show me an example? What exactly is it that you can point to that proves the existence of these natural rights other than man said so?  You cant say (in essence) the sun is yellow so it must be made out of gold. Thats not how things work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a new born child looks at you and smiles for the first time, it should be proof enough to you that the child was born with the ability to feel kindness and know kindness when it is present around him or her. Now to deny that child it's God given right afterwards, otherwise for it to feel these things in which the child has been given the right to do or to try and take that from the child afterwards would be a sin of a great maginitude, and therefore it would constitute an evil of a great maginitude that shall be delt with come the judgement. It is that we recoginize life itself as a right that has been granted unto us by God as it is written, and also it is by our witness of in these things that are before us, in which we cannot deny or escape from our very own eyes in seeing or from our very own feelings in which are a part of our own unique make up in life that was granted onto us just as well.  Where there is not God, then of course there is not life. We are given of many attributes before our awakening, and once we have awaken these attributes come shining like a star that fills the whole room with light upon those whom hold the very miracle of life within their very own arms in witness there of.
> 
> After birth it is that the new life is protected in respect to the creator, and also in respect to us being created by the one that has charged us in the protection of this life or in the future protections of his creation that will be needed in accordance with his will upon this earth therefore as it should be.
Click to expand...




> When a new born child looks at you and smiles for the first time, it should be proof enough to you that the child was born with the ability to feel kindness and know kindness when it is present around him or her.



This is the kind of thinking that is messing this whole debate up.  That right there is an assumption not proof of anything.  The child could have gas or more to point it is merely acting on instinct knowing it is defenseless and automatically smiling to ingratiate itself to the larger person.  Very similar to any animal being born and finding the mothers breast or knowing to avoid danger.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go again.  You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right.  The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate.  A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who determined this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.
Click to expand...


You determined that contemplation is the natural right of all living things ? Does anyone else know this yet ?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you conflated "grant of a right" with the right itself.  You are also conflating attributes of objects with "natural rights" of living things.
> 
> The natural rights we have discussed are blatantly obvious natural rights and many can exist entirely in the absence of human activity.  To deny them is ridiculous.  For example, the natural right of all species having sentience to contemplate action before performing action. To deny this because you can't "see" someone think, is silly.  That contemplation takes place absent any grant of same is easily proven for all sentient species. For example, all mammals and most reptiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go again.  *You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. * The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate.  A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.
Click to expand...


Its not about my eagerness to agree or disagree.  its about defining words based on what I see in the dictionary. I redefined nothing.  How is that any more whimsical than you insisting it is a right? Who says you are correct other than people, humans just like you and I, that have the same opinion as you do?  There is nothing that makes it a right except that a man/woman says so.  I agree that a computer does not have the right to contemplate because its not really contemplating nor does it have the power. It is merely following instructions a software programmer gave it and processing data, not contemplating.


----------



## dilloduck

Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the whole debate, right? Here's my take on it. Here's what i think the popular conception is for the portion in question:
> 
> 
> 
> -- Men are born with certain natural rights that should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment, among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights. --
> 
> But in my view, a better reading would be:
> 
> -- Men are born with the innate ability to act freely. The nature of our existence (this is where natural law comes in, not before) implies that certain of these freedoms should be held sacrosanct and protected from encroachment. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We create government to protect these rights  --
> 
> Essentially I'm saying that inalienable rights and and natural rights aren't the same thing. We _might_ claim that all natural rights are unalienable but not, necessarily, claim that all unalienable rights are natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what would the difference be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...
Click to expand...


There is no unalienable right to harm others, however.  There is only the unalienable right to be who and what we are, to do as we wish, to choose what we want with impunity - so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.  And that is where government comes in.  Under the U.S. Constitution, it was intended that the federal government do just as much as it needed to in order to secure our unalienable right to be who and what we want to be.  That would require the same government to not infringe on those rights--thus the Bill of Rights--even as it recognized and defended the ability of people to exercise their unalienable rights that do not infringe on the rights of others.

Nobody's right are secure under anarchy--there you have survival of the fittest, biggest, strongest, most ruthless. 
And nobody's rights are secure under authoritarian government that would presume to dictate to us what rights we will have.

The fact that rights are infringed on however does not take away those rights as the Founders understood them.  It only meant that people were denied their rights.  The Founders wanted a nation in which those rights would be recognized and defended.  And the federal government was for no other purpose than that.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.



Ok. What does this prove, in your view?


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what would the difference be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no unalienable right to harm others, however.  There is only the unalienable right to be who and what we are, to do as we wish, to choose what we want with impunity - *so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.*
Click to expand...


I would argue that you are describing, here, natural rights and not merely unalienable rights. The bolded portion is a rational extrapolation of natural law, but not of unalienable freedom. But again, that's the distinction I'm making. I'm viewing inalienable rights as identical to free will. I have no argument if we're equating natural rights and inalienable rights, and I realize that view is the consensus.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who determined this ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You determined that contemplation is the natural right of all living things ? Does anyone else know this yet ?
Click to expand...


Do your own damn homework.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. What does this prove, in your view?
Click to expand...


That man has taken upon himself to use the term "natural rights" to elevate certain behaviors as worthy of protection. Man used to use the word "God given rights" but that's not kosher anymore.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contemplation is not a right. Its an ability or power. If these natural/inalienable rights are so obvious why cant someone show me one without involving man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go again.  *You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. * The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate.  A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about my eagerness to agree or disagree.  its about defining words based on what I see in the dictionary. I redefined nothing.  How is that any more whimsical than you insisting it is a right? Who says you are correct other than people, humans just like you and I, that have the same opinion as you do?  There is nothing that makes it a right except that a man/woman says so.  I agree that a computer does not have the right to contemplate because its not really contemplating nor does it have the power. It is merely following instructions a software programmer gave it and processing data, not contemplating.
Click to expand...


Contemplation is a natural right at least because there is no possible way to legislate it away other than to harm the individual.  Such as by performing a lobotomy.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that natural rights that are deemed worthy of protection, whereas 'inalienable rights' is simply characterizing rights by their inalienable nature. There are inalienable rights that we wouldn't consider natural rights - the right to harm others, for example. I think you could also make a case - as RKMBrown suggested - for granted ('alienable') rights that we'd, nonetheless, consider natural rights, perhaps because they are integral to the survival of a rational being. I actually have a hunch that Jefferson considered 'property' to this kind of natural right, which is why he changed it to 'pursuit of happiness' in his example list...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no unalienable right to harm others, however.  There is only the unalienable right to be who and what we are, to do as we wish, to choose what we want with impunity - *so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would argue that you are describing, here, natural rights and not merely unalienable rights. The bolded portion is a rational extrapolation of natural law, but not of unalienable freedom. But again, that's the distinction I'm making. I'm viewing inalienable rights as identical to free will. I have no argument if we're equating natural rights and inalienable rights, and I realize that view is the consensus.
Click to expand...


LOL.  Fair enough.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition and for sure neither the fate of the stars or world peace hinges on that.    But in a way I can agree that freedom to be who and what we are, tochoose our own actions/goals/destiny etc., i.e. unalienable rights, and free willl are very similar and perhaps are synonymous.  But I can't see how 'natural rights' are any different from that.  Perhaps you do see a distinction that I am missing.

But I think we're pretty close regardless.  Of course in the Founders views, such rights, however they are defined, exist with or without permission from some authority.  The fact that some would refuse to acknowledge them or would refuse to allow others to exercise them does not cause them to cease to exist.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. What does this prove, in your view?
Click to expand...


That rights do not exist. They are man made constructs used to rationalize our ability to think in an abstract manner about more than just basic survival.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no unalienable right to harm others, however.  There is only the unalienable right to be who and what we are, to do as we wish, to choose what we want with impunity - *so long as we do not infringe on anybody else's rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that you are describing, here, natural rights and not merely unalienable rights. The bolded portion is a rational extrapolation of natural law, but not of unalienable freedom. But again, that's the distinction I'm making. I'm viewing inalienable rights as identical to free will. I have no argument if we're equating natural rights and inalienable rights, and I realize that view is the consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  Fair enough.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition and for sure neither the fate of the stars or world peace hinges on that.    But in a way I can agree that freedom to be who and what we are, tochoose our own actions/goals/destiny etc., i.e. unalienable rights, and free willl are very similar and perhaps are synonymous.  But I can't see how 'natural rights' are any different from that.  Perhaps you do see a distinction that I am missing.
Click to expand...


The distinction I'm getting at is that natural law, via natural rights, gets into the rationalization for which unalienable rights should be protected and why. Where as unalienable rights is just a recognition of our basic state as thinking creates that can freely make decisions. Natural rights, in my view, would not include all unalienable rights. I'm viewing 'right', in the phrase 'inalienable right' as synonymous with 'freedom', rather than imbuing it with a sense of 'shouldness'. The real difference, from what I'm seeing, is the understanding of unalienable as an existential description, rather than a designation.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider a world without humans for a second. Step back and look at it. Does it even have any need for the concept of natural rights ? Isn't everything that is happening just occurring with not so much as a single right being issued or protected ? Rights only come into play when man steps in and starts to make value judgements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. What does this prove, in your view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That rights do not exist. They are man made constructs used to rationalize our ability to think in an abstract manner about more than just basic survival.
Click to expand...


Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that you are describing, here, natural rights and not merely unalienable rights. The bolded portion is a rational extrapolation of natural law, but not of unalienable freedom. But again, that's the distinction I'm making. I'm viewing inalienable rights as identical to free will. I have no argument if we're equating natural rights and inalienable rights, and I realize that view is the consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Fair enough.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition and for sure neither the fate of the stars or world peace hinges on that.    But in a way I can agree that freedom to be who and what we are, tochoose our own actions/goals/destiny etc., i.e. unalienable rights, and free willl are very similar and perhaps are synonymous.  But I can't see how 'natural rights' are any different from that.  Perhaps you do see a distinction that I am missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The distinction I'm getting at is that natural law, via natural rights, gets into the rationalization for which unalienable rights should be protected and why. Where as unalienable rights is just a recognition of our basic state as thinking creates that can freely make decisions. Natural rights, in my view, would not include all unalienable rights. I'm viewing 'right', in the phrase 'inalienable right' as synonymous with 'freedom', rather than imbuing it with a sense of 'shouldness'. The real difference, from what I'm seeing, is the understanding of unalienable as an existential description, rather than a designation.
Click to expand...


Okay.  I don't think the Founders looked at it that way, but I don't think they would think your perspective to be so far off base they would object to it either.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. What does this prove, in your view?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That rights do not exist. They are man made constructs used to rationalize our ability to think in an abstract manner about more than just basic survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.
Click to expand...


Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That rights do not exist. They are man made constructs used to rationalize our ability to think in an abstract manner about more than just basic survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.
Click to expand...


Is anyone contesting that?


----------



## Mathbud1

I read this to help me think about this subject.

A few things stood out, but this stuck out most: the idea of the symmetrical nature of rights. I might say, "I have the right to live." If I say that though, what I imply is, "Everyone else has a duty not to kill me."

If you acknowledge that I have the right to live, you are not saying that I CANNOT be killed, but that I OUGHT not be killed. You acknowledge that people have a duty not to kill me. Whether they uphold their duty and thusly uphold my right, is beyond the scope of what the right is. If someone kills me, it does not mean that I did not have the right to live, only that they ignored their duty to let me do so.

This implies that there is a social aspect to rights. They have meaning only inasmuch as they apply to interactions. A right to life means nothing without anyone around to infringe on that right by killing you. So society is the context in which rights have meaning, but this doesn't mean that all rights come from society or especially the government. The right to life is a basic and fundamental right based on the value of life. If former governments failed to recognize that right, that does not mean that it did not exist. I for one, am glad that our government was founded with the recognition that there were some basic rights that governments could not and should not take away. Rights based on fundamental moral values that are separate from government.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is anyone contesting that?
Click to expand...


The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific. 

Rights do not exist without man making them up.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone contesting that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.
> 
> Rights do not exist without man making them up.
Click to expand...


Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone contesting that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.
> 
> Rights do not exist without man making them up.
Click to expand...


Of course they do.  Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist.  Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone contesting that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.
> 
> Rights do not exist without man making them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?
Click to expand...


No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.
> 
> Rights do not exist without man making them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.
Click to expand...


And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone contesting that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.
> 
> Rights do not exist without man making them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist.  Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.
Click to expand...


Please prove your assertion.  How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs.  If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is either yes from what I understand or I need to be more specific.
> 
> Rights do not exist without man making them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist.  Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please prove your assertion.  How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs.  If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you characterize scientific laws as things that man "makes up"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?
Click to expand...


Lets make sure we are on the same page. By scientific/natural law I am speaking about events that will occur regardless of what man calls them. Things under the heading of physics,  biology, etc.  Is this what you mean?  

Also what do you mean by consciousness?  Are you talking about being aware of your surroundings or are you talking about being able to think in abstract terms about things such as morality?


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Scientific or natural laws exist regardless of what man calls them. If all the humans disappeared from earth a rock falling into a pond would create a ripple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets make sure we are on the same page. By scientific/natural law I am speaking about events that will occur regardless of what man calls them. Things under the heading of physics,  biology, etc.  Is this what you mean?
Click to expand...


Yep. As well as a human's innate freedom to think and act on their thoughts. That's real no matter what we call it. 



> Also what do you mean by consciousness?  Are you talking about being aware of your surroundings or are you talking about being able to think in abstract terms about things such as morality?



The trait of consciousness I'm concerned with here is that which the concept of inalienable rights recognizes: our volition, ie free will.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do.  Nobody would have a name for them until somebody invented sufficient language to give them one, but they would still exist.  Just as all creatures on earth, breathing, the beating of hearts, hunger, pain, pleasure, comfort, discomfort existed before anybody knew what to call them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please prove your assertion.  How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs.  If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
Click to expand...


Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go again.  *You don't want to agree so you just start whimsically redefining terms as if calling a right an ability or power somehow changes the right into something that isn't a right. * The natural right to contemplate is a natural right of all living things that have the power to contemplate.  A computer has the power to contemplate, but does not have a natural right to do so because it is not a living thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about my eagerness to agree or disagree.  its about defining words based on what I see in the dictionary. I redefined nothing.  How is that any more whimsical than you insisting it is a right? Who says you are correct other than people, humans just like you and I, that have the same opinion as you do?  There is nothing that makes it a right except that a man/woman says so.  I agree that a computer does not have the right to contemplate because its not really contemplating nor does it have the power. It is merely following instructions a software programmer gave it and processing data, not contemplating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Contemplation is a natural right at least because there is no possible way to legislate it away other than to harm the individual.  Such as by performing a lobotomy.
Click to expand...


Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please prove your assertion.  How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs.  If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
Click to expand...




Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And scientific laws regarding human consciousness? Is the volition (i.e. freedom to decide and act) exhibited by the human mind "made up"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets make sure we are on the same page. By scientific/natural law I am speaking about events that will occur regardless of what man calls them. Things under the heading of physics,  biology, etc.  Is this what you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. As well as a human's innate freedom to think and act on their thoughts. That's real no matter what we call it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also what do you mean by consciousness?  Are you talking about being aware of your surroundings or are you talking about being able to think in abstract terms about things such as morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trait of consciousness I'm concerned with here is that which the concept of inalienable rights recognizes: our volition, ie free will.
Click to expand...


Thats a problem. I wouldn't define free will as a scientific law or a right. I would define it as an ability or to be more specific a freedom like you said.  However to answer your question free will exists no matter what you call it. It is observable.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please prove your assertion.  How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs.  If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
Click to expand...


Where is there even a reasonable rationale for how they didn't exist before man made them up?  I didn't assign the word 'natural' to them.  That was the term that those who first acknowledged and wrote about them gave to them and which the Founders referred to as 'God given' or "unalienable'.

I don't know what a cat feels but for damn sure, whatever it feels exists whether or not we know about it or have a word to describe it.

Did somebody have to 'make up' breathing or love or fear in order for these things to exist?  Did somebody have to 'thnk up' gravity in order for it to exist?  Some things just are.  Natural rights are something that just is.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions*
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> absolutely oxymorons ! I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding some other way to define them. I think they figured out that when people started to give plants and animals rights it was getting to look a little suspicious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  One fallacious premise and subsequent straw man after another.
> 
> 
> *"I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding [sic] some other way to define them."*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> The only desperation in sight is that of relativists trying to overthrow incontrovertible realities with embarrassingly fallacious doggerel.
> 
> 
> *"The terms 'natural rights' or 'inalienable rights' are oxymorons."*
> 
> The only oxymoron here is the one that is _not_ explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way:  Natural rights are *not* abilities.  Freedoms are abilities.  Natural rights are something else.
> 
> Natural rights *are*.  You don't have to *do* anything to _*have*_ them, *but* be born into nature. They are the inherent attributes and inherent expressions of *sentient beings* and *sentient beings* only.  They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a right to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.
> 
> Hence, only *sentient beings* can *have* them, *apprehend* them, *grant* rights of any kind or _*form*_ governments.
> 
> Mere animals can't do any of these things. . . .
> 
> And why can't they do anything of these things?
> 
> Because they are not born into nature *with* and, therefore, do not _*possess*_ the inherent attributes and the inherent expressions of *sentient beings*.
> 
> Nope!  No need to appeal to God to demonstrate their reality in nature.  However, folks should never forget by Whom (*sentient being*) they are ultimately endowed, so as not to fallaciously equate them to the mere abilities of freedom and get all oxymoronically duh or confuse themselves self into thinking that animals somehow or another grant themselves rights.
> 
> Animals do not have any rights, but those that human beings, not God, *dilloduck*, might stupidly grant them beyond the concern of unnecessarily inhumane treatment, and the rights that we might grant them, obviously, are not natural rights of any kind as they would necessarily be administered and enforced by government.  Otherwise, animals are nothing more than natural resources or property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your prattle is breathtaking in your sheer mastery of it. I must confess I am in awe at how easily it streams from your fingertips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only oxymoron here is the one that is _not_ explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way:  *Natural rights are not abilities.  Freedoms are abilities.  Natural rights are something else*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bolded part is pretty much what I said except I specified that natural rights were man made.  Sounds like we are close to figuring this out.
Click to expand...


You don't grasp the essence of gravity, and you don't grasp the essence of _*inalienable*_ rights.  Such rights are not abilities; hence they can't be transferred or taken.  Call them whatever you want.  _*Inalienable*_ rights is just the term we give them because they are not granted by man.  That's all the term means.  

Semantics, sir!  Semantics.  That's all you're going on about.



> Freedom is the ability to do something.  It can be taken but it is natural.



Indeed.



> Rights by their very definition are granted and specifically granted by man therefore making them not natural.



Political rights and civil rights/protections are granted by man.  That's what you're defining.  *Natural* rights are *not* and *cannot* be granted by man.  They're *natural*, innate, imbued at the very least by *nature*, obviously.         



> Inalienable means that which cannot be given or taken.



*False.  Error.  Insofar as we are talking about the natural rights of man, you are correct to say that they cannot be transferred/taken away by man; however, there's nothing in the meaning of the term inalienable that precludes the giving or granting of them.  The only thing that can be empirically asserted about them in this regard is that they cannot be given/granted by man.*

Are you making a theological argument of some kind?  If so, let's hear it.



> Rights are taken every time someone is killed.



LOL!  One does not literally _take_ a person's life when one kills a person.  Are you daft?  Are you so out of touch with reality that you can no longer distinguish the difference between reality and metaphor?  Are you claiming that one literally takes possession of another's life or another's rights when one kills another?  Where does one put these things after an evening of mayhem?  In his pocket?  His briefcase? 

Moving on from the natural realm of being. . . .  

Not only is your thinking lost in the dream world of metaphor, you're unwittingly making a metaphysical claim.  

Earlier, because he's not anywhere near as bright as he thinks he is, *G.T.* (Rabbi and others) made the same error when he imagined that I was making a theological argument for natural law.  No.  My mention of God was merely an aside.  Bonus information.  One need not appeal to the existence of God to demonstrate the actualities of natural law, and my proof as such did not include God.  G.T., utterly unawares, was the only one making a theological argument of sorts.  Zoom!  Right over his head.

The arrogance of a fool, more at the closed mindedness of an intellectual bigot.



> They are only given by man since it is hocus pocus made up by man.



Back to governmentally granted rights again?  You don't know the difference between the modifier _natural_ and _civil_, not even in theory?



> You cant [sic] show me where the proof appears that natural/inalienable rights exist without bringing man into the equation.



Uh . . . okay.  I agree.  So what's your point?  After all only sentient beings can have inalienable rights.  Only sentient beings can apprehend them.  Who would I show them to if there were no sentient beings around to show them to? 

But wait a minute!

Where would I be in that case!?  

Behold:  the mind of the relativist at work . . . er, well, not exactly at work, more at broken.



> The evidence heavily supports the argument that rights are granted by man only and subsequently protected.



You dropped the pertinent modifier again:  C-I-V-I-L.  Or you can strike the term _only_ from that statement to make it true.  Choose.   



> [1]We have declarations of these [natural] rights written by men. [2] That is are [sic] only evidence they even exist.  [3] Where are the declarations of these "natural/inalienable rights" written by nature?



1.  True.
2.  False.
3.  Are you saying that man is not a part of nature?  What other part of nature do you know of that can think and write?  The cheese has slid off your cracker.  



> Oops..... I forgot nature can't present written evidence of rights . . .



I just proved that it can and does.  What did you _actually_ forget?



> . . . nor can nature give us [natural] rights because they are also inalienable which stops nature from giving them to us.



This is a straw man.  Natural law does hold that they are _granted_ by nature, as that term implies sentience; the only kind of entity that can grant anything is a sentient entity.  

The idiomatic expressions _derived from nature_ or _imbued by nature_ are metaphors, the meanings of which alert us, though some don't get the message apparently, to the distinction between the sentient aspects of the human being and the mechanistic aspects of his physical being and those of other existents.

Man either has inalienable, natural rights are he doesn't.  That's the issue. I'm asserting that they are _inherent_ to the nature of man, and can back that and have backed that without appealing to anything metaphysical whatsoever.  In fact, I'm about to drive the point home even more emphatically.  If you want to make a metaphysical argument that he doesn't have them, by all means, let's hear it.  You've unwittingly backed yourself into another metaphysical quagmire.  

In any event, you're contradicting yourself on at least two points.    

(1) You conceded that humans can and do grant rights, albeit, you're talking about civil rights, and man is part of nature; you know, the thing you actually forgot.  In government, we do grant rights to ourselves and others, just not natural rights; and you have yet to show for all your bluster how any of the natural rights that I and others have specifically identified and defined are derived from government.

(2) You premise your argument on the _fact_ of inalienabililty, something that according to you doesn't exist in the first place.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. *The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.*
Click to expand...


That is it in a nutshell.  The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world  swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Why dilloduck Refutes Himself and Substantiates the Imperatives of Natural Law*



M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings
> 
> This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
> The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.
> M.D. Rawlings
> 
> This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
> The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.
Click to expand...


That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.

I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur.  On the contrary, natural law presupposes it:  _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_, _initial force-defensive force_.  The right of revolt, for crying out loud!

In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.

Governments _do_ universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human.  But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you?  And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly?  Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!  

Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof?  These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain.  That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of _real_ criminality.

You are refuted.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Where is there even a reasonable rationale for how they didn't exist before man made them up? * I didn't assign the word 'natural' to them.  That was the term that those who first acknowledged and wrote about them gave to them and which the Founders referred to as 'God given' or "unalienable'.
> 
> I don't know what a cat feels but for damn sure, whatever it feels exists whether or not we know about it or have a word to describe it.
> 
> Did somebody have to 'make up' breathing or love or fear in order for these things to exist?  Did somebody have to 'thnk up' gravity in order for it to exist?  Some things just are.  Natural rights are something that just is.
Click to expand...


As in how did unicorns not exist before someone made them up ?
Ya--long time ago other people tried to invent these things and come up with a name for them. WHY ?  So they could make up some laws.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is there even a reasonable rationale for how they didn't exist before man made them up?  I didn't assign the word 'natural' to them.  That was the term that those who first acknowledged and wrote about them gave to them and which the Founders referred to as 'God given' or "unalienable'.
> 
> I don't know what a cat feels but for damn sure, whatever it feels exists whether or not we know about it or have a word to describe it.
> 
> Did somebody have to 'make up' breathing or love or fear in order for these things to exist?  Did somebody have to 'thnk up' gravity in order for it to exist?  Some things just are.  *Natural rights are something that just is*.
Click to expand...


Then you should be able to show me one in action without man calling it a right.  I should be able to watch God or nature give you a right from the beginning of the process to the end.  Otherwise all you are talking about is an ability.  An ability is not another word for a right.  Ability is potential.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions*
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  One fallacious premise and subsequent straw man after another.
> 
> 
> *"I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding [sic] some other way to define them."*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> The only desperation in sight is that of relativists trying to overthrow incontrovertible realities with embarrassingly fallacious doggerel.
> 
> 
> *"The terms 'natural rights' or 'inalienable rights' are oxymorons."*
> 
> The only oxymoron here is the one that is _not_ explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way:  Natural rights are *not* abilities.  Freedoms are abilities.  Natural rights are something else.
> 
> Natural rights *are*.  You don't have to *do* anything to _*have*_ them, *but* be born into nature. They are the inherent attributes and inherent expressions of *sentient beings* and *sentient beings* only.  They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a right to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.
> 
> Hence, only *sentient beings* can *have* them, *apprehend* them, *grant* rights of any kind or _*form*_ governments.
> 
> Mere animals can't do any of these things. . . .
> 
> And why can't they do anything of these things?
> 
> Because they are not born into nature *with* and, therefore, do not _*possess*_ the inherent attributes and the inherent expressions of *sentient beings*.
> 
> Nope!  No need to appeal to God to demonstrate their reality in nature.  However, folks should never forget by Whom (*sentient being*) they are ultimately endowed, so as not to fallaciously equate them to the mere abilities of freedom and get all oxymoronically duh or confuse themselves self into thinking that animals somehow or another grant themselves rights.
> 
> Animals do not have any rights, but those that human beings, not God, *dilloduck*, might stupidly grant them beyond the concern of unnecessarily inhumane treatment, and the rights that we might grant them, obviously, are not natural rights of any kind as they would necessarily be administered and enforced by government.  Otherwise, animals are nothing more than natural resources or property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your prattle is breathtaking in your sheer mastery of it. I must confess I am in awe at how easily it streams from your fingertips.
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part is pretty much what I said except I specified that natural rights were man made.  Sounds like we are close to figuring this out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't grasp the essence of gravity, and you don't grasp the essence of _*inalienable*_ rights.  Such rights are not abilities; hence they can't be transferred or taken.  Call them whatever you want.  _*Inalienable*_ rights is just the term we give them because they are not granted by man.  That's all the term means.
> 
> Semantics, sir!  Semantics.  That's all you're going on about.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Political rights and civil rights/protections are granted by man.  That's what you're defining.  *Natural* rights are *not* and *cannot* be granted by man.  They're *natural*, innate, imbued at the very least by *nature*, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> *False.  Error.  Insofar as we are talking about the natural rights of man, you are correct to say that they cannot be transferred/taken away by man; however, there's nothing in the meaning of the term inalienable that precludes the giving or granting of them.  The only thing that can be empirically asserted about them in this regard is that they cannot be given/granted by man.*
> 
> Are you making a theological argument of some kind?  If so, let's hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  One does not literally _take_ a person's life when one kills a person.  Are you daft?  Are you so out of touch with reality that you can no longer distinguish the difference between reality and metaphor?  Are you claiming that one literally takes possession of another's life or another's rights when one kills another?  Where does one put these things after an evening of mayhem?  In his pocket?  His briefcase?
> 
> Moving on from the natural realm of being. . . .
> 
> Not only is your thinking lost in the dream world of metaphor, you're unwittingly making a metaphysical claim.
> 
> Earlier, because he's not anywhere near as bright as he thinks he is, *G.T.* (Rabbi and others) made the same error when he imagined that I was making a theological argument for natural law.  No.  My mention of God was merely an aside.  Bonus information.  One need not appeal to the existence of God to demonstrate the actualities of natural law, and my proof as such did not include God.  G.T., utterly unawares, was the only one making a theological argument of sorts.  Zoom!  Right over his head.
> 
> The arrogance of a fool, more at the closed mindedness of an intellectual bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to governmentally granted rights again?  You don't know the difference between the modifier _natural_ and _civil_, not even in theory?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh . . . okay.  I agree.  So what's your point?  After all only sentient beings can have inalienable rights.  Only sentient beings can apprehend them.  Who would I show them to if there were no sentient beings around to show them to?
> 
> But wait a minute!
> 
> Where would I be in that case!?
> 
> Behold:  the mind of the relativist at work . . . er, well, not exactly at work, more at broken.
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped the pertinent modifier again:  C-I-V-I-L.  Or you can strike the term _only_ from that statement to make it true.  Choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  True.
> 2.  False.
> 3.  Are you saying that man is not a part of nature?  What other part of nature do you know of that can think and write?  The cheese has slid off your cracker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops..... I forgot nature can't present written evidence of rights . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just proved that it can and does.  What did you _actually_ forget?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . nor can nature give us [natural] rights because they are also inalienable which stops nature from giving them to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a straw man.*  Natural law does hold that they are granted by nature, as that term implies sentience; the only kind of entity that can grant anything is a sentient entity.  *
> The idiomatic expressions _derived from nature_ or _imbued by nature_ are metaphors, the meanings of which alert us, though some don't get the message apparently, to the distinction between the sentient aspects of the human being and the mechanistic aspects of his physical being and that of other existents.
> 
> Man either has inalienable, natural rights are he doesn't.  That's the issue. I'm asserting that they are _inherent_ to the nature of man, and can back that and have backed that without appealing to anything metaphysical whatsoever.  In fact, I'm about to drive the point home even more emphatically.  If you want to make a metaphysical argument that he doesn't have them, by all means, let's hear it.  You've unwittingly backed yourself into another metaphysical quagmire.
> 
> In any event, you're contradicting yourself on at least two points.
> 
> (1) You conceded that humans can and do grant rights, albeit, you're talking about civil rights, and man is part of nature; you know, the thing you actually forgot.  In government, we do grant rights to ourselves and others, just not natural rights; and you have yet to show for all your bluster how any of the natural rights that I and others have specifically identified and defined are derived from government.
> 
> (2) You premise your argument on the _fact_ of inalienabililty, something that according to you doesn't exist in the first place.
Click to expand...


Would that be Mother Nature ?


----------



## G.T.

This thread got wheels wowza

Who is tuning into my radio show tnite?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. *The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world  swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...


Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?

What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.

We think.  We breathe.  We live.  We believe.  We speak.  We hope.  We fear.  We enjoy.  We appreciate.  We do what gives us pleasure.  All this is the natural state of humankind; what humans do in their natural state.  Natural rights are the acknowledgement that this is what humans are designed to do.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. *The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.*
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world  swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
Click to expand...


There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. *The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.*
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world  swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
> 
> We think.  We breathe.  We live.  We believe.  We speak.  We hope.  We fear.  We enjoy.  We appreciate.  We do what gives us pleasure.  All this is the natural state of humankind; what humans do in their natural state.  Natural rights are the acknowledgement that this is what humans are designed to do.
Click to expand...


No thats not the burr as you call it.  i dont have a problem with the concept of a god. I have a problem with the use of god to pass laws buttressed by a story about God striking you down for not obeying.  However this is a tiny part of the burr.  I have a large problem with rights being real without any evidence but not the Yeti. 

If most of the great philosophers had empirical evidence where is it at? Please, please show me just one piece of evidence. 

We do all those things as a function of biology. We are social animals so we make up rules to control the behaviors of the masses.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that:
> 
> *Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.*
> 
> Expalin how your statement...
> 
> *I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.*
> 
> ..negates this
> 
> When doing so, understand that I am talking about the right to say anyting I want and you are talking about the physical abilty to speak - inequal propositions.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> I am NOT referring to an ability to speak.
> I simply speak---I need no permission, license or freedom. If some one wants to protect the content of what I say that's fine and dandy but it has no bearing on my speech. It's trying to say a dog has the right to bark.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to explain your youe statement in any way negates mine.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world  swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
> No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.
Click to expand...


I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists.  Proof that all planets rotate around suns.  Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.

Prove to me that love exists.  That hate exists.  That hope exists.  That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.

Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing.  We accept that they exist because they are.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorely disappointed.  I really thought I was going to learn something new.
> 
> 
> 
> As you choose to be wrong, you have not learned because you refuse to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you choose to not provide an example of a right existing without man granting it.
Click to expand...

;yawn:
The right to free speech.
The right to assemble
The right to keep and bear arms.
None of these rights were granted by the government.
Disagree?   Cite the text that does so.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absent of any government, you will quickly find you will not be able to say anything after your tounge has been cut out.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that my rights can be violated absent the presence of any governent only proves that my rights exist absent any government.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> close to the unicorn argument again---yelling "I have been violated" is evidence that you had a right ?
Click to expand...

Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
I encourage you to try again.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
> No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists.  Proof that all planets rotate around suns.  Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.
> 
> Prove to me that love exists.  That hate exists.  That hope exists.  That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.
> 
> Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing.  We accept that they exist because they are.
Click to expand...


Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights.  The proofs of natural law are self-evident.  Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
> No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists.  Proof that all planets rotate around suns.  Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.
> 
> Prove to me that love exists.  That hate exists.  That hope exists.  That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.
> 
> Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing.  We accept that they exist because they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights.  The proofs of natural law are self-evident.  Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.
Click to expand...


I know there is as different people, including myself, have provided example after example after example.  But that doesn't seem good enough.  They might as well demand that we prove that dogs exist and then ignore it when we produce one and insist that there is no such thing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Asclepias and gnarlylove:*



*Why it is Absurd to Equate the Concept of Granting Rights with the Concept of Protecting/Promoting Rights*

*(Are you paying attention, gnarlylove?  By the way, those conventional, logical imperatives which you wrote about as if they were something profoundly beyond the reaches of my ken and which you applied to an argument I never made:  are they self-evident and absolutely true within the confines of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, which include certain mathematical and geometrical calculi . . . or were you just foolin' around when you claimed no such things could possibly be apparent to sentient, albeit, contingent beings?  Make up your mind!  

Some folks just regurgitate the conventions of logical principles from books by rote; other folks, like I, don't need books to grasp them at a glance as being axiomatic on the very face of them as well as in their  real-world applications.)*
____________________________________________________


So, *Asclepias*, you're claiming that the terms _grant_ and _protect_ are synonymous, though it is *self-evident* that your contention is on the very face of it *absolutely* false? That is to say, you're claiming that it is *self-evident* that these terms are *absolutely* synonymous in every sense though that contention is on the very face of it *absolutely* false?

This is your contention, *Asclepias*, even though the only legitimate form of government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people?  Indeed, this is your contention even though the only entities in the world that can form governments, apprehend rights or grant righs are people (sentient beings) who obviously precede government?

*Which has dominion?* 

This is your contention even though in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and case law it's emphatically asserted/understood that the government exists, not to grant, but to merely _protect/promote_ the innate rights of the people *within the confines of the social construct* as these rights are _unabrigeable_?  

*Which has dominion?*

This is your contention even though the terms _natural rights_ and _inalienable_ are translated from the language of the state of nature to the language of the state of civil government as _civil liberties_ and _unabrigeable_?  

*Which came first?*

This is your contention even though it is the people (sentient beings) who do the _granting_ of rights, that it is the people (sentient beings) who _grant_ the right to the government to _protect/promote_ their natural rights under the guise of civil liberties?  

*Which has dominion?*

This is your contention even though the people reserve the power of the inalienable, natural right to dissolve that government, as our forefathers did to the government of the Articles of Confederation, or to revolt against and overthrow that government should it cease to serve its only legitimate purpose?  

*Which has dominion?*

And, finally, this is your contention even though it be stretching credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that history's leading lights of the exegesis of nature's moral law were as absurdly stupid as you are making them out to be?  That is to say, given the centuries-old tradition of innate rights:  you actually believe that you relativistswith  ontologically self-negating blatherhave discovered something new or something they had never considered?

*Who's smarter now?*

Just how gullible are you?  Can you even put a name on the political ideologues who put this nonsense into your head at school?  Clearly, these are not your thoughts in the sense that you have thought things through and made them your own.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*gnarlylove:* 

Also, *Asclepias*, for you edification as well. . . .

*Why the Trappings of Relativism are Irrational and Irrelevant*

*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. 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.  &#8212;Declaration of Independence

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. &#8212;Preamble to the Constitution*
________________________

Oh, look, there's that word *self-evident* again!  But no such things could possibly exist according to, *gnarlylove* . . . except, according to you, the contention that relativism is *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  that is to say, there are no absolutes, except *the absolute* that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is *absolutely* false.

That doesn't work, does it?

Or try this:  it is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings _can_ readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  For example, human beings _can_ reckon that a triangle (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and three angles of equal degree) is the same thing as a square (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and four right angles) at the same time, on the same plane of reference. 

*But wait a minute!*

That doesn't work at all, does it?  That's nuts!  Human beings, quit obviously, can do no such thing.

How about those *absolute* laws of logic&#8212;the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle that cannot be rationally violated?  How about those logical categories of human consciousness that along with the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical calculi) comprise the inherently universal apprehensions of sentient, albeit, contingent beings?  But&#8212;dang it! gosh almighty!&#8212;how can this be!? . . . _unless_ . . . perhaps, maybe&#8212;just off the top of my head . . . at a glance, just shooting from the hip, as it were&#8212;the existence of these contingently sentient beings were grounded in Someone Who is _not_ contingent to anything, but eternally self-subsistent and, quite obviously, would have the authority and the power to fashion said beings in such a way that they would share these inherently universal and *absolute* insights about reality and the nature of things, so that they might surmise His existence and the apparent fact that it is in Him that they live and move and have their being?

Do you see how that might work now, *gnarlylove*?  You already conceded that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are inherently universal and must be hardwired.  Recall?  



M.D. Rawlings said:


> While I appreciate the distinction you're making between universal qualities and inherent qualities, and especially your insight regarding the essence of natural law in accordance with the Anglo-American tradition--that's refreshing!--the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision would necessarily be inherently hardwired in order to _be_ universal.  In other words, its interesting that you grasp the fact that the mutual obligations of morality are the essence of natural law in the history of its exegesis, though you hold the latter to be a mere corollary in some sense:  in nature, I don't know of any universal quality in any given category of thing that isn't also inherent in that category of thing.
> 
> Besides, the reason that all humans know that its wrong to murder or to oppress or to steal from others is because they would not have anyone do these things to them.  Hence, everyone knows where their rights end and the rights of others begin.  Even the sociopath/psychopath knows this.  He just doesn't care, as one who's bereft of moral shame and empathy, until these things are perpetrated on him.
> 
> . . . Uh, currently, the reigning opinion in the epistemological literature, due to recent advances in the neurological sciences, holds that along with a universal baseline of geometric-logistic predilections: humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the human brain. The traditional, Aristotelian blank slate of Empiricism, at least in this respect, is dead.



Your response:



gnarlylove said:


> Excellent point. It forces me to clarify my own position in a meaningful way and that rarely happens on here. Many thanks.
> 
> My reply is that I'm not saying human beings don't have these hard wired. I've said indeed there is a biological component that pervades all culture. You can call it the golden rule but we don't really know much about this topic; though good work has been done by John Mikhail on this subject.



Now, are you ready to concede the fact that they are _also_ *absolute*, at the very least, within the framework of human consciousness and experience . . . whether, objectively speaking, they be backed by any actually existing divinity or not?  For let us consider the fact that for all intents and purposes, given that human beings _cannot_ coherently reckon existents or successfully handle them, things both rational and empirical, unless they do so in such a way which in effect amounts to these things being *absolute* beyond the confines of human consciousness?

*crickets chirping*

The answer is obvious.  Indeed, the answer is *self-evident*.

In the final analysis of things as they _are_, not as they might be purely as a matter of dogma:  human beings cannot and do not live their lives as if the irrationalism of relativism were true regardless of what they might believe to be true . . . ultimately.

You see, the difference between folks like me and relativists:  we don't care about the irrelevancies of abstract social constructs and the like, theoretical mumbo jumbo, semantic quibbles over actualities or sophomoric philosophical distinctions over potentialities which make no difference, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."  That is _not_ the pertinent question!  

And, once again, as I have shown, I don't have to appeal to the existence of God in order to demonstrate the practical actualities of human existence and apprehension . . . though only a fool would deny the cogency of my observation regarding the same.  And I don't have to appeal to God's existence in order to demonstrate the practical actualities of human conduct and human interaction with regard to the imperatives of natural law (or natural morality),* which, by the way, is the thing I declared to be self-evident and absolute in the context that you mangled!*  I had already proven elsewhere, just as I have proven once again in the above, that the inherently universal, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness were *absolutely* binding for all intents and purposes.

It's relativists who confuse themselves and mangle the facts of existence, as they spout logically indefensible rubbish of the esoteric kind.

And in that very same post, I went on to prove _why_ the imperatives of natural law are not only inherently universal, which you conceded, but _why_ their existence is *self-evident* and _why_ their nature is *absolute* as well.

*(Though why you would question the fact that they are axiomatically apparent after conceding that they are inherently universal remains a mystery.) *


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
> No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists.  Proof that all planets rotate around suns.  Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.
> 
> Prove to me that love exists.  That hate exists.  That hope exists.  That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.
> 
> Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing.  We accept that they exist because they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights.  The proofs of natural law are self-evident.  Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.
Click to expand...


Interesting----first you claim there is plenty of evidence and then turn around and claim they are self evident. I think Jefferson was using anything he could get his hands on to make sure people thought these rights were important enough to deserve protection


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that my rights can be violated absent the presence of any governent only proves that my rights exist absent any government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> close to the unicorn argument again---yelling "I have been violated" is evidence that you had a right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
> I encourage you to try again.
Click to expand...


so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ?  Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
> No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists.  Proof that all planets rotate around suns.  Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.
> 
> Prove to me that love exists.  That hate exists.  That hope exists.  That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.
> 
> Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing.  We accept that they exist because they are.
Click to expand...


Because something else exists does not mean natural rights exist.  What is the rational reason for unicorns not existing ? If you don't have one then I guess they exist ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*gnarlylove: 

Also, Asclepias and others, for your edification as well. . . .*

*Why the Natural Rights of Man are Absolute*

Recall, gnarlylove, you wrote:



> So these natural rights are universal among the human species and do not exist outside the human species. *[1] Thus, if we died, so does natural rights as we present them. I guess this was the gist of my "they aren't intrinsic" bit.* I don't know if this contradicts or supports your belief but it seems axiomatic, really, once we understand natural rights for what they are. A highly useful description in our current age, even a "true" description, *[2] but one that does not extend beyond the human species or into the metaphysical realm we so often wish to ascribe such rights and "truths."*




*Edited excerpt of my response:*



> *(1)* Well, yes, as we present them in natural terms, that's true; for the deceased their existence ends . . . in the natural realm of being.  But given that they are universally inherent to human nature, they are universally intrinsic to human nature.  Right?  They are spiritually intrinsic as well.  But let's concentrate on the level of their being on which we agree, though my approach in this instance may at first blush seem to be counterproductive to that goal.
> 
> . . . Here I wish to further underscore the importance of bearing in mind the Persons (Trinity) by Whom they (three) are ultimately endowed while illustrating their actuality in nature.  Given the incontrovertible fact that they are universally inherent to the nature of sentient beings, the fundamental, innate rights of man, obviously, are not derived from government, but neither can they be transferred to another _nor_ even taken by another as some have suggested.
> 
> They are _that_ *absolute*.
> 
> For this reason, I consistently express their actuality in terms of the mutual obligations of morality with the dichotomic correlates of _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_ and _initial force-defensive force_ in mind. . . .  Hence, natural rights are _not_ inalienable in the sense that they _cannot_ (ability) be violated or suppressed; they're inalienable in the sense that they _may not_ (consent) be violated or suppressed without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.  This rendering of the matter entails the understanding that they cannot be transferred to another or taken by another.
> 
> As I have observed in other posts, discussing natural rights in terms of mere ability implies that they are subject to being negated by the whims of other natural agents.  But there exists only one Agent Who can terminate them, the same Agent Who endowed them in the first place.  Further, given that God is the Author of natural law and the God of nature, given that He is the ultimate Source and Guarantor of human rights:  even equating rights to the seemingly benign abilities of thought and expression is foolhardy, for innate rights cease to be rights of any kind at the point where one's rights end and another's rights begin.  While one can never violate the natural rights of another human being . . . with mere thoughts or expressions, one may quite readily violate the inherent rights of God with one's thoughts and expressions.
> 
> _Ability_ is not the essence of rights.
> 
> *(2)* We are not alone, and just as the sentient creatures of nature precede and command the trappings of government, wisely or unwisely, God precedes and commands the very existence of nature itself. . . .  A human being may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that does not transfer my rights to him or to anyone else.  He does not TAKE my rights away from me and go to Timbuktu with them.  He does not TAKE my life either.  People!  Metaphor!  No one actually takes another person's life or rights away in any literal sense.
> 
> Where does he put this life and these rights that he supposedly takes?  In his pocket?
> 
> A natural entity may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that takes neither my life nor my rights away.  Ultimately, I'm an eternal being comprised of a spiritual substance.  My life and my rights stay with me wherever I go.
> 
> Don't get hung up on that.  That's just something to think about.  I've already shown that in the natural without having to appeal to God's existence that no human being literally takes one's life or rights away by killing one.
> 
> No human being in the natural realm can kill my body, physically oppress me or steal my property in the first place, except God allow it; *and* should He allow it, *now argued strictly in the terms of nature as promised*, my life is not transferred to another should one kill me, my basic liberties . . . remain intact via my rational faculties should one physically overwhelm and oppress me, and the nonnegotiable asset of my property is me, my own self should one steal from me.
> 
> What?  Stealing my watch, for example, steals my rights?
> 
> People!
> 
> . . . As for criminals, killed or incarcerated for perpetrating serious transgressions against an individual or the body politic, their just due is exacted on them via the defensive counterforce of the same, respectively.  But as I've shown, even that does not extinguish their natural rights, though it does severely limit their expression.
> 
> . . . In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or the legitimate political/civil rights of others.
> 
> *My following posts are going to hammer each point home in an increasingly concrete way.  There will be no room for doubt about why and how they are absolute.*


----------



## KokomoJojo

lets start from the beginning..... what are the elements of a 'right'?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*gnarlylove:* 

Also, *Asclepias*, for you edification as well. . . .

*More on why the Natural Rights of Man are Absolutely Inalienable even under the Duress of Oppression or Incarceration for those who failed to extrapolate the finer nuances of the matter the first time around*


*First, what are they precisely:*

*The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*



> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature be but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*


__________________________________________

Now, some of you, no doubt, will wonder about the term *freedom* and *movement* because you don't know the history or the language of natural law, and have never thought things through, like *gnarlylove*, who imagines that an oppressed or incarcerated person losses his natural rights, despite my incontrovertible argument to the contrary _and_ as if any mere human being could transfer these things to another in death or terminate these things of another in life.

*(1)*  The use of the term _freedom_ in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term _civil liberty_, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature.  They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be.  The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement:  the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.

*(2)*  The only sense in which a sentient being stops moving under duress is geographically:  due to oppression proper or criminal incarceration.  No sentient being actually stops moving in nature&#8212;either intellectually or even physically&#8212;as long as it's alive.  Hence, the actual essence of human liberty is inalienable.  Presumably, all of you grasp why this is so in the intellectual sense.  If you don't grasp why this is so in the physical sense&#8212;given the empirical facts of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry&#8212;your name is *gnarlylove*.

Also, because human beings _are_ sentient, they are not entirely bound by the artificial constraints on the freedom of movement that may be exerted by man.  We remain free to travel to other places and things in our minds.  I know that some of you are hopping up and down right now on one pretext or the other, but before you bounce right out of you minds, consider the fact that we are not bound by instinct as other natural creatures, but equipped with free will.  So it is not unreasonable to think of the constraints exerted by man, though he be part of nature, as being artificial in the sense of that factor.  No human being happily or, even willingly on the inside, submits to physical restraint, whether he be a law-abiding citizen or not. 

Feel free to quibble over the sentient being's rational mode of travel if you must.  But before you do, read on.

Under the duress of oppression, all sentient beings retain the inalienable right of revolt as long as they are alive.  Don't tell me that one cannot rise up against injustice perpetrated by the state or even overthrow the same.  It happens all the time.

Under the duress of incarceration for criminality, one does not lose the inherent right of self-defense, as some have suggested, in any historical rendition of natural morality or as a result of a statute in any code of law or in any judicial decree that has ever existed.  (Read that last sentence again very carefully.)  Oppression might be afoot, but the inherent right remains. 

In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or legitimate civil/political rights of others!  

The pertinent fact of reality that flies right over the head of some is that the duly convicted criminal is under the thumb of the inalienable right of defensive counterforce.  Unless a criminal be executed for a capital offence(s), in which case, neither his life nor his rights are transferred, the only sense in which his natural rights are affected, goes to the artificial, albeit, just means of restrain.  His natural rights are not terminated as any person with an IQ above that of a gnat might see should that person stop for a moment, arrest his renegade logic and think . . . instead of mindlessly reacting.  

That's why we need the fence.  The inherent attribute or desire to flee remains.

Further, no incarcerated person is beyond the pale of the due process of law in the form of exoneration or pardon, and does not fail to reassert the unchanneled or overt expressions of his natural rights once released from the constraints of his sentence.

Why?

Because the essence of his inalienable, natural rights never left him!

Knock, knock, anybody home?


----------



## dilloduck

KokomoJojo said:


> lets start from the beginning..... what are the elements of a 'right'?



Ownership-----if you have mineral rights you own the minerals.


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That rights do not exist. They are man made constructs used to rationalize our ability to think in an abstract manner about more than just basic survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.
Click to expand...

Why not, otherwise if you chose to type something to yourself, then you have a God given right to do so, and if I were you, I'd let no man ever tell me otherwise. Now if a man takes away your right to type something in thought of unto yourself, then you have been robbed of something that belongs to you, and if you don't think that, then you probably don't actually exist at all. Hec, you may be just a figment of your own imagination.. LOL


----------



## dilloduck

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not, otherwise if you chose to type something to yourself, then you have a God given right to do so, and if I were you, I'd let no man ever tell me otherwise. Now if a man takes away your right to type something in thought of unto yourself, then you have been robbed of something that belongs to you, and if you don't think that, then you probably don't actually exist at all. Hec, you may be just a figment of your own imagination.. LOL
Click to expand...


Is the right to type to myself unalienable ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*gnarlylove:* 

Also, *Asclepias*, for you edification as well. . . .

*The Most Fundamental Aspects of the Human Liberties:  the second category of the inalienable, natural rights of man*

*Bear in mind what the natural rights are, the three categories:*

*The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*



> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature be but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*


*

__________________________________________

The universal essence of the inalienable, natural liberties of man are Belief, Expression and Movement:  the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of human beings, who are the only sentient animals in nature on Earth.

Now, why am I using the term sentient animal in this instance?  Because sentient being, which is fine in virtually all of the other contexts of this issue, and sentient creature have broader connotations that in this instance are not relevant.  The term being in the context of sentience alone is too broadly generic, and would include the ultimate sentience of existence.  (Please, let's not get into the theological quibbles of Potential-Actual.  They're not relevant!).  The term creature in the context of sentience implies a Creator.  In other words, I need not appeal to God in order to demonstrate what the substance (composition) of the natural rights of man (the naturally occurring, inherent attributes and expressions of sentient animals ) is at the material level of being either.

However, the term being is fine with the term human in front of it, i.e., the only kind of sentient animal in nature on Earth.  The reason I went through all that rather than cutting to the chase is because many of you confuse yourselves and jump to conclusions before pausing, thinking, gasping.  

Foundation.  Expounded.  Extrapolated.  Distilled.  What is the thing's essence?  What is it, really?  What is pertinent?  What is relevant?  No excuses.  Move on! 

The composition of the natural rights of man (Belief, Expression and Movement) are, of course, natural; therefore, they are concrete, material, tangible, empirical . . . just as the imperatives of natural law (or natural morality) are, ultimately, in terms of the readily apparent and demonstrable actualities of human conduct and human interaction in extant reality and history.  (Materialists:  I know that the State and Science are your gods; so don't waste our time quibbling over the term history either, e.g., paleontological and archeological artifacts.  Empirical!  Got it?) 

Those who would claim that the composition of the human being's interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions&#8212;Belief, Expression and Movement&#8212;at the most basic level of their being in nature are not discernibly or demonstrably concrete, material, tangible, empirical . . . are as wrong as they can be.

Obviously, as one who believes in the existence of an eternally existent and, therefore, self-subsistent transcendence, the ultimate Source of our rights, I do not hold to the scientifically unfalsifiable meanderings of materialism proper; and we need not quibble over the scientifically unfalsifible, albeit, rationally cogent concerns of theology.  These things are not immediately relevant.

I've already expounded the enduring anatomical, physiological and biochemical facts of the liberty of Movement at its most basic level of being in nature as they relate to the attributes and expressions (generic) of sentience.  But that is not the full story about this liberty, though I did allude to the rest of the story.  I indirectly touched on the higher aspects of these enduring facts, namely, the human being's rational mode of travel.  

But it's the impertinence&#8212;the temerity!&#8212;of the prospect that there be a material composition for the liberties of Belief and Expression that's got many of you jumping up and down.  But there's nothing mysterious or especially difficult to see about any of this, and the following entails the higher aspects of the Liberty of Movement as well:

The composition of human Belief and Expression at its most basic level of being in nature is the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle:  not as a whole as the materialist would have it, but as the sum.  The difference between the two, for those who react before thinking, is the difference between that which is metaphysical and that which is quantifiable, respectively.  

And here's the thing, the materialist necessarily concedes the ontological actuality of the sum in the assertion of the alleged, ontological actuality of his whole.    

*crickets chirping*

Point?

The apparent objections being raised by the naysayers on this thread comes down to the abstractions of semantics and/or those of the sociopolitical constructs of government.  Camouflage.  It is now manifestly incontrovertible that human nature at its most basic level of being as well as the subsequent attributes and expressions thereof (the material substance of natural rights) ontologically precede the substance of these objections.  

That is self-evident!

Hence, the actual objections are something else:  the purely metaphysical presuppositions of ontological relativism, epistemological relativism and moral relativism.  

What is the thing's essence?  What is it, really?
______________________

Now, given the nature of my observations here, some of you might want to cry foul . . . given the fact that I have also argued that man has recognized the imperatives of natural law since he appeared.

How could that be if the pre-scientific philosophers and theologians of antiquity&#8212;those who would grapple with these things beyond the instinctual level of understanding in terms of self-preservation and self-interest&#8212;knew next to nothing about the actual nuts and bolts of neurological science?  In others words, how could they credibly argue that the three categories of the innate rights of man (the right to life, the right to liberty and the right of private property) and the perception of their correlates (murder, oppression and theft) were materially embedded in human nature?

(Threes.  Here a three, there a three, everywhere a three three.)

So you think they weren't aware of the Body-Soul dichotomy?  Of course they were.  They were aware of the Rational-Empirical dichotomy, too!  These things and all the other big questions have been pondered and expressed under the guise of innumerable adumbrations for centuries.  The thinkers of the Enlightenment, for example, didn't grapple with anything new that the ancients didn't grapple with; the former merely grappled with them in an arguably different way as a result of the development of science proper.  Notwithstanding, science, in and of itself, does not and cannot answer the big questions.  It merely gives us more information, in terms of both quantity and reliability, to work with.

The fact of the matter is that the ancients held that the pertinent concerns of natural morality and desire, the essence and inclinations of sentience and variously other things, were physiologically embedded in major organs, including the brain, though the ancient Egyptians didn't think much of that one:  heart, liver, spleen, stomach, even sexual organs. . . .  These were the nexuses between the body and soul:  the centers of life itself and the various aspects of sentience pertinent to the unique attributes of humanity and the rights thereof.

The historically reoccurring and universal themes of natural morality are materially inherent!  

2 + 2 = 4.  It's that simple and that obvious.  That's why the ancients believed they had to be physiologically embedded in some way and thusly linked to the soul as well.  They were right! at least insofar as the essential truth of the former, if not the latter, objectively speaking, just wrong about the details.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> There are a couple of problems with it.  Lets see...



They all come down to one thing, you refuse to open your mind.



Asclepias said:


> 1. Rights (noun) are defined as:
> 
> a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.



If we accept that definition of definitive the key word is or, as in making a choice between two or more things. Since I have already shown that morals exist in nature outside the minds of man, there is a clear argument to be made that natural rights have the same source as morals.



Asclepias said:


> 2. That means someone would have to be conscious to grant them to us.



No it doesn't. 



Asclepias said:


> 3. That also means in additon that someone would need to be conscience to even think these rights up.



Yet you cannot actually demonstrate that man is the source of rights. On the other hand, there are actually morals in nature, despite your insistence that people are the only source of morals.



Asclepias said:


> 4. Inalienable is defined as:
> 
> unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.



How is that a problem?



Asclepias said:


> 5. All "rights" can be taken by simply killing someone.



Prove it.



Asclepias said:


> 6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind.  If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?



Even if the theory is incorrect that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of natural rights. 



Asclepias said:


> 7. natural is defined as
> 
> not manmade.



Since rights are not made by man, I don't see that as a problem.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind.  If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?



What's your point?  

Again, you've been refuted.  Read the posts on this, and stop being closed-minded.

Excerpt:



> . . . there are no absolutes, except *the absolute* that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is *absolutely* false.
> 
> That doesn't work, does it?
> 
> Or try this:  it is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings _can_ readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  For example, human beings _can_ reckon that a triangle (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and three angles of equal degree) is the same thing as a square (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and four right angles) at the same time, on the same plane of reference.
> 
> *But wait a minute!*
> 
> That doesn't work at all, does it?  That's nuts!  Human beings, quit obviously, can do no such thing.
> 
> How about those *absolute* laws of logic&#8212;the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle that cannot be rationally violated?  How about those logical categories of human consciousness that along with the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical calculi) comprise the inherently universal apprehensions of sentient. . . .
> 
> . . . Now, are you ready to concede the fact that they are _also_ *absolute*, at the very least, within the framework of human consciousness and experience . . . whether, objectively speaking, they be backed by any actually existing divinity or not?  For let us consider the fact that for all intents and purposes, given that human beings _cannot_ coherently reckon existents or successfully handle them, things both rational and empirical, unless they do so in such a way which in effect amounts to these things being *absolute* beyond the confines of human consciousness?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> The answer is obvious.  Indeed, the answer is *self-evident*.
> 
> In the final analysis of things as they _are_, not as they might be purely as a matter of dogma:  human beings cannot and do not live their lives as if the irrationalism of relativism were true regardless of what they might believe to be true . . . ultimately.
> 
> You see, the difference between folks like me and relativists:  we don't care about the irrelevancies of abstract social constructs and the like, theoretical mumbo jumbo, semantic quibbles over actualities or sophomoric philosophical distinctions over potentialities which make no difference, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."  That is _not_ the pertinent question!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists.  Proof that all planets rotate around suns.  Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.
> 
> Prove to me that love exists.  That hate exists.  That hope exists.  That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.
> 
> Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing.  We accept that they exist because they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights.  The proofs of natural law are self-evident.  Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting----first you claim there is plenty of evidence and then turn around and claim they are self evident. I think Jefferson was using anything he could get his hands on to make sure people thought these rights were important enough to deserve protection
Click to expand...


No.  What's interesting is that you would think that "plenty of evidence", which goes to extant fact and historical experience in this case, just for starters, would be incongruent with the statement that they are also self-evident. 

Here's the fundamental rule of reality with which you and I must contend:  the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical calculi) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision are inherently universal, and they are absolute.

Simple example:  what difference would it make to you or me if _2 + 2_ weren't _4_ beyond the constraints of our minds?

What we look for in terms of reality in everything we do, including science:  do the substances and processes of empirical phenomena as observed align with our internal reckoning of them?

What's the apparent difference between the Sun and fairies?  The Sun exists in both the empirical and the rational estimation of things.  The fairy only exists in the rational . . . or so it seems.

If beyond the constraints of our minds, what is ultimately true is something else in this respect, what difference would that make to us?  How could we even know?
______________________  

Jefferson?  What's Jefferson got to do with it?  There's not one idea in the Declaration of Independence that originates with him.  Not one!  Except of course, arguably, his enumeration of King George's offences, albeit, relative to the principles that precede him by centuries. 

You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a couple of problems with it.  Lets see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all come down to one thing, you refuse to open your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Rights (noun) are defined as:
> 
> a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we accept that definition of definitive the key word is or, as in making a choice between two or more things. Since I have already shown that morals exist in nature outside the minds of man, there is a clear argument to be made that natural rights have the same source as morals.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot actually demonstrate that man is the source of rights. On the other hand, there are actually morals in nature, despite your insistence that people are the only source of morals.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind.  If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if the theory is incorrect that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. natural is defined as
> 
> not manmade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since rights are not made by man, I don't see that as a problem.
Click to expand...


*Asclepias*, you've been refuted in detail by me on every point; you've been refuted by Quantum with the quip on every point.  If you would think about the essence of your objections relative to the answers you get from Quantum, you could see the realities of the matter for yourself.  If you would just read my posts on the same, you would get a helping hand along the way.

It's okay to be wrong, but why do you close your mind and stay that way?

While I believe that God is behind nature and, therefore, is the One who, ultimately, endows our natural rights; one need not argue that some consciousness beyond nature would have to exist in order for us to have them.  Why.  Can't.  You.  Grasp.  That?

Ironically, that God's point in terms of free will.  Notwithstanding, morality is in nature.  Violate it's terms and watch what happens.  God demonstrates His existence in that fashion . . . not by overpowering your will and making you get real with yourself and others.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Everything you need to know about natural law and natural rights, and the misunderstandings typically alleged by leftists about them. . . .*

*The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*



> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*



Note:  The use of the term _freedom_ in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term _civil liberty_, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature.  They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be.  The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement:  the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-71.html#post8902898

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 94 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-87.html#post8910157

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-94.html#post8914725

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-86.html#post8909910

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915369

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915433

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 96 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

___________________________________________________________

*Master these things and you will be an expert, not only on natural law, but the way of reality itself.*


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Everything you need to know about natural law and natural rights, and the misunderstandings typically alleged by leftists about them. . . .*
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note:  The use of the term _freedom_ in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term _civil liberty_, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature.  They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be.  The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement:  the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-71.html#post8902898
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 94 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-87.html#post8910157
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-94.html#post8914725
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-86.html#post8909910
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915369
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915433
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 96 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> 
> *Master these things and you will be an expert, not only on natural law, but the way of reality itself.*
Click to expand...


Since the dawn of man ?  Really ?  What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please prove your assertion.  How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs.  If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
Click to expand...


ROFL  to funny.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about my eagerness to agree or disagree.  its about defining words based on what I see in the dictionary. I redefined nothing.  How is that any more whimsical than you insisting it is a right? Who says you are correct other than people, humans just like you and I, that have the same opinion as you do?  There is nothing that makes it a right except that a man/woman says so.  I agree that a computer does not have the right to contemplate because its not really contemplating nor does it have the power. It is merely following instructions a software programmer gave it and processing data, not contemplating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contemplation is a natural right at least because there is no possible way to legislate it away other than to harm the individual.  Such as by performing a lobotomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".
Click to expand...


I call it a natural right, because it is.  That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it existed without man.   I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it.  In other words, *if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights* as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation.  They exist period.  All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not.  But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait.  Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.
Click to expand...


No.  There is no religious agenda to calling certain rights natural or inalienable.  However some people may have a religious agenda to have power over certain rights legal rights that can be given or taken away, such as the legal right to abort babies and the legal right to force people to pay for said abortions.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contemplation is a natural right at least because there is no possible way to legislate it away other than to harm the individual.  Such as by performing a lobotomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call it a natural right, because it is.  That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.
Click to expand...


You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof they existed before man made them up?  Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct.  How do you know the cat feels courage?  Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in?  Now you hit on something that I need to ask about.  What did people observe that made them define these things as rights.  If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  There is no religious agenda to calling certain rights natural or inalienable.  However some people may have a religious agenda to have power over certain rights legal rights that can be given or taken away, such as the legal right to abort babies and the legal right to force people to pay for said abortions.
Click to expand...




> So why do so many Libertarians use the term "Natural Law?" Simply, it gives them the means by which to elevate their opinions, dogmas, and prejudices to a metaphysical level where nobody will dare to criticise or even think about them. *The term smacks of religion, where "Natural Law" has replaced "God's Law."* The latter fiction gave the priest power over believers. "Natural Law" is designed to give the Libertarian ideologist power over the people that he or she wants to rule.



F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.



There was definitely an agenda, just as there's an agenda now in the campaign to consider rights as "made up". I actually think that's the more interesting angle in this discussion. The whole point of claiming natural rights was to establish a rationale for basic freedom that didn't depend on the whim of nation-states, whether they be 'democratic' or ruled by the divine right of kings. The agenda to reverse that, to make our rights once again dependent on our rulers, should properly be seen as a threat to human rights, and ultimately authoritarian.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world  swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
> 
> We think.  We breathe.  We live.  We believe.  We speak.  We hope.  We fear.  We enjoy.  We appreciate.  We do what gives us pleasure.  All this is the natural state of humankind; what humans do in their natural state.  Natural rights are the acknowledgement that this is what humans are designed to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thats not the burr as you call it.  i dont have a problem with the concept of a god. I have a problem with the use of god to pass laws buttressed by a story about God striking you down for not obeying.  However this is a tiny part of the burr.  I have a large problem with rights being real without any evidence but not the Yeti.
> 
> If most of the great philosophers had empirical evidence where is it at? Please, please show me just one piece of evidence.
> 
> We do all those things as a function of biology. We are social animals so we make up rules to control the behaviors of the masses.
Click to expand...

And a group of gorillas, and a pack of wolves are also social animals who make up rules and establish rights for certain behaviors within their social circles.   Humans are so vain to believe they alone have learned to establish laws for behavior, and to recognize natural rights of the members.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call it a natural right, because it is.  That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I call it a natural right, because it is.  That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
Click to expand...


I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I call it a natural right, because it is.  That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
Click to expand...


Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.
Click to expand...


It also means that it can't be taken away


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
> 
> We think.  We breathe.  We live.  We believe.  We speak.  We hope.  We fear.  We enjoy.  We appreciate.  We do what gives us pleasure.  All this is the natural state of humankind; what humans do in their natural state.  Natural rights are the acknowledgement that this is what humans are designed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thats not the burr as you call it.  i dont have a problem with the concept of a god. I have a problem with the use of god to pass laws buttressed by a story about God striking you down for not obeying.  However this is a tiny part of the burr.  I have a large problem with rights being real without any evidence but not the Yeti.
> 
> If most of the great philosophers had empirical evidence where is it at? Please, please show me just one piece of evidence.
> 
> We do all those things as a function of biology. We are social animals so we make up rules to control the behaviors of the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a group of gorillas, and a pack of wolves are also social animals who make up rules and *establish rights* for certain behaviors within their social circles.   Humans are so vain to believe they alone have learned to establish laws for behavior, and to recognize natural rights of the members.
Click to expand...


The bolded is my whole point. Rights are granted. In the case of gorillas and wolves for example the dominant animal grants or bestows those rights. In the case of wolves for example the alpha wolf eats first.  The other wolves have the ability to eat first but they dont have the right.  Except I never heard a wolf call it a right. The naturalist calls it a right.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?
Click to expand...


Well, as I said above, they're good for establishing a rationale for our rights that doesn't depend on our rulers. What threat are they? Why are you arguing so adamantly against the proposition?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
Click to expand...


Right. Destroying something isn't taking away part of it.


----------



## dilloduck

Here's a really good group of essays on the Myth of Natural Rights-----besides being enlightening it's also pretty funny. I highly recommend it.

Natural Law, or Don?t Put a Rubber on Your Willy (Robert Anton Wilson) | The Anarchist Library


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a couple of problems with it.  Lets see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all come down to one thing, you refuse to open your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> If we accept that definition of definitive the key word is or, as in making a choice between two or more things. Since I have already shown that morals exist in nature outside the minds of man, there is a clear argument to be made that natural rights have the same source as morals.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot actually demonstrate that man is the source of rights. On the other hand, there are actually morals in nature, despite your insistence that people are the only source of morals.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the theory is incorrect that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. natural is defined as
> 
> not manmade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since rights are not made by man, I don't see that as a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Asclepias*, you've been refuted in detail by me on every point; you've been refuted by Quantum with the quip on every point.  If you would think about the essence of your objections relative to the answers you get from Quantum, you could see the realities of the matter for yourself.  If you would just read my posts on the same, you would get a helping hand along the way.
> 
> It's okay to be wrong, but why do you close your mind and stay that way?
> 
> While I believe that God is behind nature and, therefore, is the One who, ultimately, endows our natural rights; one need not argue that some consciousness beyond nature would have to exist in order for us to have them.  Why.  Can't.  You.  Grasp.  That?
> 
> Ironically, that God's point in terms of free will.  Notwithstanding, morality is in nature.  Violate it's terms and watch what happens.  God demonstrates His existence in that fashion . . . not by overpowering your will and making you get real with yourself and others.
Click to expand...


When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate.  You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as I said above, they're good for establishing a rationale for our rights that doesn't depend on our rulers. What threat are they? Why are you arguing so adamantly against the proposition?
Click to expand...


Surely you jest. Rulers will be the ones punishing people for breaking the natural laws and interfering with "natural rights ".


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said above, they're good for establishing a rationale for our rights that doesn't depend on our rulers. What threat are they? Why are you arguing so adamantly against the proposition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you jest. Rulers will be the ones punishing people for breaking the natural laws and interfering with "natural rights ".
Click to expand...


But they won't be the ones deciding what those rights are. Which is the point.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was definitely an agenda, just as there's an agenda now in the campaign to consider rights as "made up". I actually think that's the more interesting angle in this discussion. The whole point of claiming natural rights was to establish a rationale for basic freedom that didn't depend on the whim of nation-states, whether they be 'democratic' or ruled by the divine right of kings. The agenda to reverse that, to make our rights once again dependent on our rulers, should properly be seen as a threat to human rights, and ultimately authoritarian.
Click to expand...


That may be true but it doesnt change the fact that rights are something thought up by man as a protection mechanism to maintain order in society. it is our instinct to establish a pecking order and rights are bestowed by the ruling class.  We get in where we fit in and restrain our abilities to stay at the level of our rights. That is how the ruling class keeps us in control.  I have the ability to go pick out a room in the White House and sleep there but I don't have the right.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said above, they're good for establishing a rationale for our rights that doesn't depend on our rulers. What threat are they? Why are you arguing so adamantly against the proposition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest. Rulers will be the ones punishing people for breaking the natural laws and interfering with "natural rights ".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they won't be the ones deciding what those rights are. Which is the point.
Click to expand...


Really ?  Exactly who is going to decide what natural rights are then  and who will enforce them ?


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was definitely an agenda, just as there's an agenda now in the campaign to consider rights as "made up". I actually think that's the more interesting angle in this discussion. The whole point of claiming natural rights was to establish a rationale for basic freedom that didn't depend on the whim of nation-states, whether they be 'democratic' or ruled by the divine right of kings. The agenda to reverse that, to make our rights once again dependent on our rulers, should properly be seen as a threat to human rights, and ultimately authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true but it doesnt change the fact that rights are something thought up by man as a protection mechanism to maintain order in society. it is our instinct to establish a pecking order and rights are bestowed by the ruling class.  We get in where we fit in and restrain our abilities to stay at the level of our rights. That is how the ruling class keeps us in control.  I have the ability to go pick out a room in the White House and sleep there but I don't have the right.
Click to expand...


Kings and popes have come up with natural rights too. They just only naturally occurred in kings and popes. What a coincidence.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was definitely an agenda, just as there's an agenda now in the campaign to consider rights as "made up". I actually think that's the more interesting angle in this discussion. The whole point of claiming natural rights was to establish a rationale for basic freedom that didn't depend on the whim of nation-states, whether they be 'democratic' or ruled by the divine right of kings. The agenda to reverse that, to make our rights once again dependent on our rulers, should properly be seen as a threat to human rights, and ultimately authoritarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be true but it doesnt change the fact that rights are something thought up by man as a protection mechanism to maintain order in society. it is our instinct to establish a pecking order and rights are bestowed by the ruling class.  We get in where we fit in and restrain our abilities to stay at the level of our rights. That is how the ruling class keeps us in control.  I have the ability to go pick out a room in the White House and sleep there but I don't have the right.
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The question is whether rights are based on something objective, like rational observation of the human condition, or subjective, like the decree of rulers. Of course they are "made up", in the sense that they are products of human thought. But so are other observational natural laws. But that doesn't make the underlying reality and less 'real'.

Again, I have to ask what you see as the practical implications of your view that natural rights are 'just made up' - specifically in regard to how we decide what basic human rights should be. Are you saying we should make no attempt to find a rational basis for rights? What should be the criteria, if not objective observation of human nature?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest. Rulers will be the ones punishing people for breaking the natural laws and interfering with "natural rights ".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they won't be the ones deciding what those rights are. Which is the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ?  Exactly who is going to decide what natural rights are then  and who will enforce them ?
Click to expand...


"We the people" decide, and we enlist government to enforce them.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they won't be the ones deciding what those rights are. Which is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ?  Exactly who is going to decide what natural rights are then  and who will enforce them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We the people" decide, and we enlist government to enforce them.
Click to expand...


Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ?  Exactly who is going to decide what natural rights are then  and who will enforce them ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We the people" decide, and we enlist government to enforce them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.
Click to expand...


No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the burr under your saddle?  That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given?  That some believe that now?  And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?
> 
> What if the term "God given" had never been coined?  That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights?  Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given".  They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense.  The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.
> 
> We think.  We breathe.  We live.  We believe.  We speak.  We hope.  We fear.  We enjoy.  We appreciate.  We do what gives us pleasure.  All this is the natural state of humankind; what humans do in their natural state.  Natural rights are the acknowledgement that this is what humans are designed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thats not the burr as you call it.  i dont have a problem with the concept of a god. I have a problem with the use of god to pass laws buttressed by a story about God striking you down for not obeying.  However this is a tiny part of the burr.  I have a large problem with rights being real without any evidence but not the Yeti.
> 
> If most of the great philosophers had empirical evidence where is it at? Please, please show me just one piece of evidence.
> 
> We do all those things as a function of biology. We are social animals so we make up rules to control the behaviors of the masses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a group of gorillas, and a pack of wolves are also social animals who make up rules and establish rights for certain behaviors within their social circles.   Humans are so vain to believe they alone have learned to establish laws for behavior, and to recognize natural rights of the members.
Click to expand...


Survival of the fittest-----works for me--let's see how it works with humans.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?
Click to expand...


Good point, and a much better question.

The point is only certain of our rights should be legislated by the federal government, that is what good they are. They are good to show and/or elevate differences between that which should be regulated and that which should not be regulated by said potentially tyrannical forces. 

Look what happens when we are not paying attention.  Look at the 14th amendment where the government gave itself the power to take your life, liberty, and property by due process, wherein the due process is what they say is due process. Look at the un-patriot act.  We are but slaves to a government, that has declared itself our judge, jury, and conviction-er.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was definitely an agenda, just as there's an agenda now in the campaign to consider rights as "made up". I actually think that's the more interesting angle in this discussion. The whole point of claiming natural rights was to establish a rationale for basic freedom that didn't depend on the whim of nation-states, whether they be 'democratic' or ruled by the divine right of kings. The agenda to reverse that, to make our rights once again dependent on our rulers, should properly be seen as a threat to human rights, and ultimately authoritarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true but it doesnt change the fact that rights are something thought up by man as a protection mechanism to maintain order in society. it is our instinct to establish a pecking order and rights are bestowed by the ruling class.  We get in where we fit in and restrain our abilities to stay at the level of our rights. That is how the ruling class keeps us in control.  I have the ability to go pick out a room in the White House and sleep there but I don't have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The question is whether rights are based on something objective, like rational observation of the human condition, or subjective, like the decree of rulers. Of course they are "made up", in the sense that they are products of human thought. But so are other observational natural laws. But that doesn't make the underlying reality and less 'real'.
> 
> Again, I have to ask what you see as the practical implications of your view that natural rights are 'just made up' - specifically in regard to how we decide what basic human rights should be. Are you saying we should make no attempt to find a rational basis for rights? What should be the criteria, if not objective observation of human nature?
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed.  I have the ability to do as I please.  I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security.  It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control.  Yes we should establish laws to protect people but lets call it what it is. We dont need to validate those laws by claiming nature gave them to us.  It should suffice to say you are not allowed kill someone because its against the laws established.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> "We the people" decide, and we enlist government to enforce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.
Click to expand...


We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true but it doesnt change the fact that rights are something thought up by man as a protection mechanism to maintain order in society. it is our instinct to establish a pecking order and rights are bestowed by the ruling class.  We get in where we fit in and restrain our abilities to stay at the level of our rights. That is how the ruling class keeps us in control.  I have the ability to go pick out a room in the White House and sleep there but I don't have the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The question is whether rights are based on something objective, like rational observation of the human condition, or subjective, like the decree of rulers. Of course they are "made up", in the sense that they are products of human thought. But so are other observational natural laws. But that doesn't make the underlying reality and less 'real'.
> 
> Again, I have to ask what you see as the practical implications of your view that natural rights are 'just made up' - specifically in regard to how we decide what basic human rights should be. Are you saying we should make no attempt to find a rational basis for rights? What should be the criteria, if not objective observation of human nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed and defined.  I have the ability to do as I please.  I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security.  It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control.
Click to expand...


This is about the relative authority of government, not me and you, so again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And of course it's about social control, pretty much all of morality is working on that. Why do you see that as a problem? More importantly, why do you see returning control of our rights to government as an improvement?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?
Click to expand...


Take it how you like. Or, you could try to understand it. We're talking, fundamentally, about how we decide what basic human rights should be, or even (I guess) whether there should be any. Could you clarify what you prefer as an alternative?


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point, and a much better question.
> 
> The point is only certain of our rights should be legislated by the federal government, that is what good they are. They are good to show and/or elevate differences between that which should be regulated and that which should not be regulated by said potentially tyrannical forces.
> 
> Look what happens when we are not paying attention.  Look at the 14th amendment where the government gave itself the power to take your life, liberty, and property by due process, wherein the due process is what they say is due process. Look at the un-patriot act.  We are but slaves to a government, that has declared itself our judge, jury, and conviction-er.
Click to expand...


That will happen if we are paying attention or not. There is nothing we can do about it.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take it how you like. Or, you could try to understand it. We're talking, fundamentally, about how we decide what basic human rights should be, or even (I guess) whether there should be any. Could you clarify what you prefer as an alternative?
Click to expand...


Our country has argued with it self from day one over what behaviors should be protected and what behaviors should be unished. We have a generally framework that is supposed to keep a few major behaviors protected but years of interpretations and definition changes has slowly eroded them. I think the frame work we have is as good as any.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take it how you like. Or, you could try to understand it. We're talking, fundamentally, about how we decide what basic human rights should be, or even (I guess) whether there should be any. Could you clarify what you prefer as an alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our country has argued with it self from day one over what behaviors should be protected and what behaviors should be unished. We have a generally framework that is supposed to keep a few major behaviors protected but years of interpretations and definition changes has slowly eroded them. I think the frame work we have is as good as any.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by that? The framework laid out by the Constitution (which, is based on natural rights) - or the myriad ways we've strayed from that? That's really what we're arguing about here, whether we stick with the natural rights approach, or fully grant authority over determining our rights to government. Which are you advocating? Either? Something else?


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?
Click to expand...


Obama used his government protection to murder US citizens with predator drones.  He did it, bragged about it, got away with it.  Not a joke.  Obama used his government protection to buy machine guns for known terrorists and drug dealers, who then used those guns to kill American citizens.  Not a joke.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, and a much better question.
> 
> The point is only certain of our rights should be legislated by the federal government, that is what good they are. They are good to show and/or elevate differences between that which should be regulated and that which should not be regulated by said potentially tyrannical forces.
> 
> Look what happens when we are not paying attention.  Look at the 14th amendment where the government gave itself the power to take your life, liberty, and property by due process, wherein the due process is what they say is due process. Look at the un-patriot act.  We are but slaves to a government, that has declared itself our judge, jury, and conviction-er.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That will happen if we are paying attention or not. There is nothing we can do about it.
Click to expand...


Sure there is.  We can stop voting for the two headed beast. We group up and start shooting back.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
Click to expand...


Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The question is whether rights are based on something objective, like rational observation of the human condition, or subjective, like the decree of rulers. Of course they are "made up", in the sense that they are products of human thought. But so are other observational natural laws. But that doesn't make the underlying reality and less 'real'.
> 
> Again, I have to ask what you see as the practical implications of your view that natural rights are 'just made up' - specifically in regard to how we decide what basic human rights should be. Are you saying we should make no attempt to find a rational basis for rights? What should be the criteria, if not objective observation of human nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed and defined.  I have the ability to do as I please.  I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security.  It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is about the relative authority of government, not me and you, so again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And of course it's about social control, pretty much all of morality is working on that. Why do you see that as a problem? More importantly, why do you see returning control of our rights to government as an improvement?
Click to expand...


I mentioned this in the last post. The very act of telling me I have inalienable rights places you in a position of authority subconsciously for most humans. You are giving me something I knew I already had but you have reassured me by calling it a god given right.  You have made me feel protected. Now I look to you to validate what I can and cannot do.  Gee thanks I can live, be free, and occupy some space.  I'm now safe and secure.  I can relax. Who do I owe thanks to for this feeling of security? My ruling class for telling me so. 

I dont like the phrasing on your question about returning the rights to government.  They always had it.  Knowing this as a fact doesn't leave me out in la la land contemplating airy things like god given or inalienable.  Its all about the human potential. It puts me in a state where I can do anything within the rules or laws established by our society. I wont sit on my butt saying I have a right to something but I do have the ability to go out and get it.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
Click to expand...


If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
Click to expand...


Utter nonsense. By your argument there is only nothingness.  By your argument, since anything can be destroyed nothing actually exists.  Complete utter nonsense.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
Click to expand...


Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.

You are confusing a right with ability.  They are two separate things.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. By your argument there is only nothingness.  By your argument, since anything can be destroyed nothing actually exists.  Complete utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


No. By my argument you cease to exist along with your inalienable rights here on earth where I can see you. Nothingness would mean you never existed which is impossible because you had to exist for me to kill you.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.
> 
> You are confusing a right with ability.  *They are two separate things.*
Click to expand...


I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed and defined.  I have the ability to do as I please.  I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security.  It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is about the relative authority of government, not me and you, so again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And of course it's about social control, pretty much all of morality is working on that. Why do you see that as a problem? More importantly, why do you see returning control of our rights to government as an improvement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mentioned this in the last post. The very act of telling me I have inalienable rights places you in a position of authority subconsciously for most humans. You are giving me something I knew I already had but you have reassured me by calling it a god given right.  You have made me feel empowered. Now I look to you to validate what I can and cannot do.  Gee thanks I can live, be free, and occupy some space.  I'm now safe and secure.  I can relax. Who do I owe thanks to for this feeling of security? My ruling class for telling me so.
Click to expand...


I assume the 'you' here is referring to the later mentioned 'ruling class' (and not me), but who is that? And who put them in charge of deciding what natural rights are?



> I dont like the phrasing on your question about returning the rights to government.  They always had it.



No, they didn't. That's the core claim of the DOI, and exactly what natural rights does - it claims that authority for 'we the people', and our consent to be government is contingent on our government respecting that fact.



> Knowing this as a fact doesn't leave me out in la la land contemplating airy things like god given or inalienable.  Its all about the human potential. It puts me in a state where I can do anything within the rules or laws established by our society. I wont sit on my butt saying I have a right to something but I do have the ability to go out and get it.



Huh?


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.
Click to expand...


No you haven't, you have only destroyed it. I mentioned this earlier. Inalienable doesn't mean indestructible. It means it can't be separated, can't be taken _away_. The only way you can get rid of inalienable rights is to destroy the mind that possesses them. Inalienable freedom is a trait of human intelligence, not a grant of privilege.


----------



## dblack

Let's go over the terms again. Inalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't be violated", that's what "right" means. "Inalienable right" means an "innate, inseparable freedom that shouldn't be violated".


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.
> 
> You are confusing a right with ability.  *They are two separate things.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?
Click to expand...


Yes we have a right to life as the Founders and those who first concluded that there was a concept of natural rights.  Gravity exists whether anybody even thinks about it.  It doesn't exist because somebody thought it up.  Human yearnings, imagination, hope, ambition, and desire exist whether or not anybody acknowledges them or understands them or is even specifically aware of them.  They don't exist because somebody declared that they exist.

The Founders decreed that nobody was free, that there was no liberty, unless natural  (aka unalienable or God-given) rights were acknowledged and protected.  They were determined to forge a nation in which natural rights would be acknowledged and protected so that the people could enjoy the blessings of liberty.

Whatever we are and whatever we do that does not violate another's rights and requires no contribution or participation by any other is a natural right.  That is what the condition is called just as a squirrel is called a squirrel or a bird is called a bird.  The fact that humans gave such things a 'name' or 'label' and different people call them different things does not change what they are.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't, you have only destroyed it. I mentioned this earlier. Inalienable doesn't mean indestructible. It means it can't be separated, can't be taken _away_. *The only way you can get rid of inalienable rights is to destroy the mind that possesses them. Inalienable freedom is a trait of human intelligence*, not a grant of privilege.
Click to expand...


Can you repeat that louder for the board?  I agree it only exists in the human mind.  Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.
> 
> You are confusing a right with ability.  *They are two separate things.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we have a right to life as the Founders and those who first concluded that there was a concept of natural rights.  Gravity exists whether anybody even thinks about it.  It doesn't exist because somebody thought it up.  Human yearnings, imagination, hope, ambition, and desire exist whether or not anybody acknowledges them or understands them or is even specifically aware of them.  They don't exist because somebody declared that they exist.
> 
> The Founders decreed that nobody was free, that there was no liberty, unless natural  (aka unalienable or God-given) rights were acknowledged and protected.  They were determined to forge a nation in which natural rights would be acknowledged and protected so that the people could enjoy the blessings of liberty.
> 
> Whatever we are and whatever we do that does not violate another's rights and requires no contribution or participation by any other is a natural right.  That is what the condition is called just as a squirrel is called a squirrel or a bird is called a bird.  The fact that humans gave such things a 'name' or 'label' and different people call them different things does not change what they are.
Click to expand...




You still avoided my question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Its great the founders told us something that was pretty evident already.  The fact that they told me it was a right instead of just how things are still puts them in the position of authority.  Words are important.  If you define a word such as "right" to be an entitlement that means it must be bestowed, granted, or given.  Who is giving this right?  If it is a concept as you just admitted then the people coming up with this concept are the ones granting the rights.  The air does not grant rights people do. This is a very important distinction. If the definition of right did not define that it was an entitlement and instead it meant ability I would have no issue.  As it is since no one can prove a creator gave us the right then why would you believe you even have it?


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.
> 
> You are confusing a right with ability.  They are two separate things.
Click to expand...


So we just look to see what people think or do and claim that to be a natural right ?
How about jumping-----is jumping a natural right ?


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
Click to expand...


and it was men who wrote the Constitution that makes the claim that these rights exist.  Again---a man made concept. If humans did not exist neither would the concept of rights.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Let's go over the terms again. Inalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't be violated", that's what "right" means. "Inalienable right" means an "innate, inseparable freedom that shouldn't be violated".



Inalienable:

adjective
1.
*unable to be taken away from* or given away by the possessor.

Right:
noun
2. a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.



Inalienable right = oxymoron


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't, you have only destroyed it. I mentioned this earlier. Inalienable doesn't mean indestructible. It means it can't be separated, can't be taken _away_. *The only way you can get rid of inalienable rights is to destroy the mind that possesses them. Inalienable freedom is a trait of human intelligence*, not a grant of privilege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you repeat that louder for the board?
Click to expand...


Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?



> I agree it only exists in the human mind.  Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.



It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, or are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't, you have only destroyed it. I mentioned this earlier. Inalienable doesn't mean indestructible. It means it can't be separated, can't be taken _away_. *The only way you can get rid of inalienable rights is to destroy the mind that possesses them. Inalienable freedom is a trait of human intelligence*, not a grant of privilege.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you repeat that louder for the board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it only exists in the human mind.  Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.
Click to expand...


This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there. 

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go over the terms again. Inalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't be violated", that's what "right" means. "Inalienable right" means an "innate, inseparable freedom that shouldn't be violated".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable:
> 
> adjective
> 1.
> *unable to be taken away from* or given away by the possessor.
> _
> Right:
> noun
> 2. a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
> 
> Inalienable right = oxymoron_
Click to expand...

_

Now do the honorable thing and google the definition for *unalienable rights.* and please post them.  The Declaration used the term 'unalienable' that can be used interchangeably with 'inalienable'.

The first definition Bing came up with under 'Unalienable rights defined' was this (and there are lots and lots more):




			UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 

2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: 

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. 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 to 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

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

"Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

("[T]he Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations." SANDIN v. CONNER, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)

In the second article of the Declaration of Rights, which was made part of the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is declared: 'That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought or of right can be compelled, to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent; nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be, vested in, or assumed, by any power whatever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.' (Dec. of Rights, Art. 2.). . . (The Judge then read the 1st. 8th. and 11th articles of the Declaration of Rights; and the 9th. and 46th sections of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. See 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. Penn. Laws p. 55. 6. 60. in the Appendix.) From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

I had thought it self-evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with liberty as one of the cardinal unalienable rights. It is that basic freedom which the Due Process Clause protects, rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. . . It demeans the holding in Morrissey - more importantly it demeans the concept of liberty itself - to ascribe to that holding nothing more than a protection of an interest that the State has created through its own prison regulations. For if the inmate's protected liberty interests are no greater than the State chooses to allow, he is really little more than the slave described in the 19th century cases. I think it clear that even the inmate retains an unalienable interest in liberty - at the very minimum the right to be treated with dignity - which the Constitution may never ignore. MEACHUM v. FANO, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) . . . .
		
Click to expand...

Unalienable Rights Defined_


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you repeat that louder for the board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it only exists in the human mind.  Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
Click to expand...


You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.



> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.



Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind. 

Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Everything you need to know about natural law and natural rights, and the misunderstandings typically alleged by leftists about them. . . .*
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: *the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. *The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: *the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.*
> 
> 
> 
> Note:  The use of the term _freedom_ in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term _civil liberty_, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature.  They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be.  The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement:  the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-71.html#post8902898
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 94 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-87.html#post8910157
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-94.html#post8914725
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-86.html#post8909910
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915369
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915433
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 96 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> 
> *Master these things and you will be an expert, not only on natural law, but the way of reality itself.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of man ?  Really ?  What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?
Click to expand...


By definition, divine rights are unnatural.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind.
> 
> Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.
Click to expand...


This is why I generally prhase it as 'unalienable/natural/God-given' rights, any of which can be used interchangeably.  It is my effort to affirm that such rights exist whether or not one believes in God.

Many of the great philosophers who first recognized the  concept were not at all religious or at least they did not associate such rights with God.  Those who were religious, and who believe God to be the source of all things, would of course have been more prone to attach the concept of "God given" to the definition.

Just as there was no word for 'gravity' before Sir Isaac Newton reasoned that such a thing existed, there was no term for 'unalienable rights' before people began to reason that such things exist.  But just as gravity existed before anybody thought about it or gave it a name, so did unalienable rights.  And gravity would still exist if somebody called it by a different term or name.  And so do unalienable rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call it a natural right, because it is.  That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.
Click to expand...


How do you explain ghosts?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. By your argument there is only nothingness.  By your argument, since anything can be destroyed nothing actually exists.  Complete utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. By my argument you cease to exist along with your inalienable rights here on earth where I can see you. Nothingness would mean you never existed which is impossible because you had to exist for me to kill you.
Click to expand...


What inalienable rights?  Make up your mind, they exist or don't.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have a right to life as the Founders and those who first concluded that there was a concept of natural rights.  Gravity exists whether anybody even thinks about it.  It doesn't exist because somebody thought it up.  Human yearnings, imagination, hope, ambition, and desire exist whether or not anybody acknowledges them or understands them or is even specifically aware of them.  They don't exist because somebody declared that they exist.
> 
> The Founders decreed that nobody was free, that there was no liberty, unless natural  (aka unalienable or God-given) rights were acknowledged and protected.  They were determined to forge a nation in which natural rights would be acknowledged and protected so that the people could enjoy the blessings of liberty.
> 
> Whatever we are and whatever we do that does not violate another's rights and requires no contribution or participation by any other is a natural right.  That is what the condition is called just as a squirrel is called a squirrel or a bird is called a bird.  The fact that humans gave such things a 'name' or 'label' and different people call them different things does not change what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still avoided my question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Its great the founders told us something that was pretty evident already.  The fact that they told me it was a right instead of just how things are still puts them in the position of authority.  Words are important.  If you define a word such as "right" to be an entitlement that means it must be bestowed, granted, or given.  Who is giving this right?  If it is a concept as you just admitted then the people coming up with this concept are the ones granting the rights.  The air does not grant rights people do. This is a very important distinction. If the definition of right did not define that it was an entitlement and instead it meant ability I would have no issue.  As it is since no one can prove a creator gave us the right then why would you believe you even have it?
Click to expand...


You are confusing natural right to life with natural ability to defend oneself from being killed by an armed mob of murderous federal agents.  IOW you are continuing your pursuit of this completely nonsensical argument of yours that rights have to not only be granted but also defended and agreed upon by all humans and be irrefutably indestructible to the end of all time to perfectly ensure that no granted right is ever broken or modified by anyone not even by an act of god or other hap-instance.  I can only assume you to be, in this case, nothing more than a Troll.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.
> 
> 
> We don't need no stinking badges!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  There is no religious agenda to calling certain rights natural or inalienable.  However some people may have a religious agenda to have power over certain rights legal rights that can be given or taken away, such as the legal right to abort babies and the legal right to force people to pay for said abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do so many Libertarians use the term "Natural Law?" Simply, it gives them the means by which to elevate their opinions, dogmas, and prejudices to a metaphysical level where nobody will dare to criticise or even think about them. *The term smacks of religion, where "Natural Law" has replaced "God's Law."* The latter fiction gave the priest power over believers. "Natural Law" is designed to give the Libertarian ideologist power over the people that he or she wants to rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?
Click to expand...


You have a bunch of philosophy, I have science.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. By your argument there is only nothingness.  By your argument, since anything can be destroyed nothing actually exists.  Complete utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. By my argument you cease to exist along with your inalienable rights here on earth where I can see you. Nothingness would mean you never existed which is impossible because you had to exist for me to kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What inalienable rights?  Make up your mind, they exist or don't.
Click to expand...


They don't exist.  I should have quoted them so you could detect the sarcasm. My bad.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.. . . .
Click to expand...


And you just identified one of the most annoying things about message boards.

As has been discussed, all of us at some time have arrived at the absolutely terrible moment in a spirited discussion in which we realize the other person is right and we are wrong.  And how hard is it to admit that?

But the person who is right will be able to continue to present the evident or evidence.  The other may or may not be mature enough to acknowledge it.

Or he/she will ignore it and stubbornly insist that his/her point of view is the only valid one.

Or will deflect with tactics like ignoring any rebuttal to points made and especially by ignoring the answers to the same question asked over and over and over.   (Now I'm pondering if that is included in the Alinksky method. . . oh well, not important.)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end.  Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
Click to expand...


So far no one has taken away any of my rights, despite one person insisting that he, personally, granted them to me.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind.
> 
> Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.
Click to expand...


I scrolled up and do not see the answer to my question.  Please help me see your answer to the question I put to you.

There is a 3rd option to your question on if I am being stubborn or stupid. Have you considered the possibility that you just happen to be wrong?  That would keep you from being rude.  I would hate for you to bow out of the conversation before you provided proof that something invisible gave us a set of entitlements.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thats not the burr as you call it.  i dont have a problem with the concept of a god. I have a problem with the use of god to pass laws buttressed by a story about God striking you down for not obeying.  However this is a tiny part of the burr.  I have a large problem with rights being real without any evidence but not the Yeti.
> 
> If most of the great philosophers had empirical evidence where is it at? Please, please show me just one piece of evidence.
> 
> We do all those things as a function of biology. We are social animals so we make up rules to control the behaviors of the masses.
> 
> 
> 
> And a group of gorillas, and a pack of wolves are also social animals who make up rules and *establish rights* for certain behaviors within their social circles.   Humans are so vain to believe they alone have learned to establish laws for behavior, and to recognize natural rights of the members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bolded is my whole point. Rights are granted. In the case of gorillas and wolves for example the dominant animal grants or bestows those rights. In the case of wolves for example the alpha wolf eats first.  The other wolves have the ability to eat first but they dont have the right.  Except I never heard a wolf call it a right. The naturalist calls it a right.
Click to expand...


If your whole point  is that wolves have rights than you have to admit that they are, by definition, natural. That would mean that you have been wrong every time you argued otherwise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Here's a really good group of essays on the Myth of Natural Rights-----besides being enlightening it's also pretty funny. I highly recommend it.
> 
> Natural Law, or Don?t Put a Rubber on Your Willy (Robert Anton Wilson) | The Anarchist Library



I think actual facts trump funny essays.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all come down to one thing, you refuse to open your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> If we accept that definition of definitive the key word is or, as in making a choice between two or more things. Since I have already shown that morals exist in nature outside the minds of man, there is a clear argument to be made that natural rights have the same source as morals.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you cannot actually demonstrate that man is the source of rights. On the other hand, there are actually morals in nature, despite your insistence that people are the only source of morals.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the theory is incorrect that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Since rights are not made by man, I don't see that as a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Asclepias*, you've been refuted in detail by me on every point; you've been refuted by Quantum with the quip on every point.  If you would think about the essence of your objections relative to the answers you get from Quantum, you could see the realities of the matter for yourself.  If you would just read my posts on the same, you would get a helping hand along the way.
> 
> It's okay to be wrong, but why do you close your mind and stay that way?
> 
> While I believe that God is behind nature and, therefore, is the One who, ultimately, endows our natural rights; one need not argue that some consciousness beyond nature would have to exist in order for us to have them.  Why.  Can't.  You.  Grasp.  That?
> 
> Ironically, that God's point in terms of free will.  Notwithstanding, morality is in nature.  Violate it's terms and watch what happens.  God demonstrates His existence in that fashion . . . not by overpowering your will and making you get real with yourself and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate.  You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.
Click to expand...


You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. By my argument you cease to exist along with your inalienable rights here on earth where I can see you. Nothingness would mean you never existed which is impossible because you had to exist for me to kill you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What inalienable rights?  Make up your mind, they exist or don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't exist.  I should have quoted them so you could detect the sarcasm. My bad.
Click to expand...


Ok.  Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate.  How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate?  How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far no one has taken away any of my rights, despite one person insisting that he, personally, granted them to me.
Click to expand...


If you make me angry I just might take away your right to breath. I will do so at a time of my choosing so when it occurs you will know I revoked your right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. By your argument there is only nothingness.  By your argument, since anything can be destroyed nothing actually exists.  Complete utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. By my argument you cease to exist along with your inalienable rights here on earth where I can see you. Nothingness would mean you never existed which is impossible because you had to exist for me to kill you.
Click to expand...


Not if you are delusional.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What inalienable rights?  Make up your mind, they exist or don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't exist.  I should have quoted them so you could detect the sarcasm. My bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate.  How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate?  How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?
Click to expand...


The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability.  Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology.  No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see.  Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding. 

If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a group of gorillas, and a pack of wolves are also social animals who make up rules and *establish rights* for certain behaviors within their social circles.   Humans are so vain to believe they alone have learned to establish laws for behavior, and to recognize natural rights of the members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded is my whole point. Rights are granted. In the case of gorillas and wolves for example the dominant animal grants or bestows those rights. In the case of wolves for example the alpha wolf eats first.  The other wolves have the ability to eat first but they dont have the right.  Except I never heard a wolf call it a right. The naturalist calls it a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your whole point  is that wolves have rights than you have to admit that they are, by definition, natural. That would mean that you have been wrong every time you argued otherwise.
Click to expand...


You must not have read the rest of my post. People established the concept of rights not wolves.  I have yet to hear a wolf explain pack behavior as a system of rights.  The wolves actions are an instinctual response specific to their system of social living just like ours.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Asclepias*, you've been refuted in detail by me on every point; you've been refuted by Quantum with the quip on every point.  If you would think about the essence of your objections relative to the answers you get from Quantum, you could see the realities of the matter for yourself.  If you would just read my posts on the same, you would get a helping hand along the way.
> 
> It's okay to be wrong, but why do you close your mind and stay that way?
> 
> While I believe that God is behind nature and, therefore, is the One who, ultimately, endows our natural rights; one need not argue that some consciousness beyond nature would have to exist in order for us to have them.  Why.  Can't.  You.  Grasp.  That?
> 
> Ironically, that God's point in terms of free will.  Notwithstanding, morality is in nature.  Violate it's terms and watch what happens.  God demonstrates His existence in that fashion . . . not by overpowering your will and making you get real with yourself and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate.  You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.
Click to expand...


Uh...Yeah I can.  Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we have a right to life as the Founders and those who first concluded that there was a concept of natural rights.  Gravity exists whether anybody even thinks about it.  It doesn't exist because somebody thought it up.  Human yearnings, imagination, hope, ambition, and desire exist whether or not anybody acknowledges them or understands them or is even specifically aware of them.  They don't exist because somebody declared that they exist.
> 
> The Founders decreed that nobody was free, that there was no liberty, unless natural  (aka unalienable or God-given) rights were acknowledged and protected.  They were determined to forge a nation in which natural rights would be acknowledged and protected so that the people could enjoy the blessings of liberty.
> 
> Whatever we are and whatever we do that does not violate another's rights and requires no contribution or participation by any other is a natural right.  That is what the condition is called just as a squirrel is called a squirrel or a bird is called a bird.  The fact that humans gave such things a 'name' or 'label' and different people call them different things does not change what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still avoided my question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Its great the founders told us something that was pretty evident already.  The fact that they told me it was a right instead of just how things are still puts them in the position of authority.  Words are important.  If you define a word such as "right" to be an entitlement that means it must be bestowed, granted, or given.  Who is giving this right?  If it is a concept as you just admitted then the people coming up with this concept are the ones granting the rights.  The air does not grant rights people do. This is a very important distinction. If the definition of right did not define that it was an entitlement and instead it meant ability I would have no issue.  As it is since no one can prove a creator gave us the right then why would you believe you even have it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing natural right to life with natural ability to defend oneself from being killed by an armed mob of murderous federal agents.  IOW you are continuing your pursuit of this completely nonsensical argument of yours that rights have to not only be granted but also defended and agreed upon by all humans and be irrefutably indestructible to the end of all time to perfectly ensure that no granted right is ever broken or modified by anyone not even by an act of god or other hap-instance.  I can only assume you to be, in this case, nothing more than a Troll.
Click to expand...


You consider me a troll because I dont agree with you??!!!  That seems pretty convenient for your argument.  I'll take that as just an emotional outburst due to frustration at your inability to show me that a right exists without man defining it as a right.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't exist.  I should have quoted them so you could detect the sarcasm. My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate.  How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate?  How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability.  Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology.  No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see.  Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding.
> 
> If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
Click to expand...


Apparently this natural right to life thing is contingent on a number of variables and has a shelf life.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate.  You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh...Yeah I can.  Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?
Click to expand...


Who told you that you are subject to gravity?  Who told you that you have a liver?  A heart?  A brain?  That you think?  That you are a jerk sometimes?  That you have ability to be a thoughtful person?  That you love?  That you hope?  That you want?  That you care?  Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?

Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate.  How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate?  How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability.  Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology.  No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see.  Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding.
> 
> If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently this natural right to life thing is contingent on a number of variables and has a shelf life.
Click to expand...


Personally I think we need to renegotiate these rights. I never agreed that my right to life had contingencies.  If I had been at the bargaining table i would have specified that you age until you are 28 and then live forever at that age.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability.  Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology.  No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see.  Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding.
> 
> If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently this natural right to life thing is contingent on a number of variables and has a shelf life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I think we need to renegotiate these rights. I never agreed that my right to life had contingencies.  If I had been at the bargaining table i would have specified that you age until you are 28 and then live forever at that age.
Click to expand...


We're gonna have to have a talk with whoever negotiated these natural rights. I want a list of all of them first. It sounds like there are a mess of them that the Constitution missed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.  I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think.  That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live.  Let me pose this question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to?  I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.
> 
> You are confusing a right with ability.  *They are two separate things.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?
Click to expand...


I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.
> 
> You are confusing a right with ability.  *They are two separate things.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.
Click to expand...


How about if a one man gives another the right to drill for oil on his land ?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...Yeah I can.  Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who told you that you are subject to gravity?  Who told you that you have a liver?  A heart?  A brain?  That you think?  That you are a jerk sometimes?  That you have ability to be a thoughtful person?  That you love?  That you hope?  That you want?  That you care?  Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?
> 
> Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?
Click to expand...



I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down.  Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it.  I never saw my or anyone else's right to life.  I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.

What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist?  For that matter why is it important to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to live can be ended.   The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed.  Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed.  But our right to these things cannot be taken away.
> 
> You are confusing a right with ability.  *They are two separate things.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.
Click to expand...


Just because you say you refuted me doesn't mean it occurred anywhere else but in your mind.  Sort of like these rights we are talking about.  I told you awhile back I granted you the natural right to breath.  You already had the ability but just in case you lost that ability I'm giving you the right.  You should feel secure that until that right is revoked you will have no problems whatsoever breathing.  Any problems with breathing will let you know I'm possibly on the verge of revoking that right.  Now can you show me the non-person that gave you the right to liberty?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...Yeah I can.  Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that you are subject to gravity?  Who told you that you have a liver?  A heart?  A brain?  That you think?  That you are a jerk sometimes?  That you have ability to be a thoughtful person?  That you love?  That you hope?  That you want?  That you care?  Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?
> 
> Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down.  Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it.  I never saw my or anyone else's right to life.  I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.
> 
> What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist?  For that matter why is it import to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.
Click to expand...


And are you not able to observe that people think?  That they speak?  That they care?  That they hope?  That they enjoy activties without or without others?  That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish?  That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have?  To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that?  To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?

The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind.  They didn't make it up.  That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way.  They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that you are subject to gravity?  Who told you that you have a liver?  A heart?  A brain?  That you think?  That you are a jerk sometimes?  That you have ability to be a thoughtful person?  That you love?  That you hope?  That you want?  That you care?  Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?
> 
> Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down.  Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it.  I never saw my or anyone else's right to life.  I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.
> 
> What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist?  For that matter why is it import to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And are you not able to observe that people think?  That they speak?  That they care?  That they hope?  That they enjoy activties without or without others?  That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish?  That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have?  To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that?  To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?
> 
> The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind.  They didn't make it up.  That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way.  They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.
Click to expand...


Yes I can observe people do those things.  I call them abilities.  A very dominant ability we as humans have is the ability to create concepts out of thin air and in contradiction to reality. It makes us feel safe that some all powerful entity gave us rights so we make it so.  Your words painted a beautiful and stirring picture complete with harps and accompanied by a chorus.  However that is just my imagination.  There are no harps and no chorus.  Same thing with rights.  If you have the right to life why do people die that don't want to?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down.  Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it.  I never saw my or anyone else's right to life.  I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.
> 
> What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist?  For that matter why is it import to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And are you not able to observe that people think?  That they speak?  That they care?  That they hope?  That they enjoy activties without or without others?  That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish?  That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have?  To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that?  To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?
> 
> The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind.  They didn't make it up.  That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way.  They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can observe people do those things.  I call them abilities.  A very dominant ability we as humans have is the ability to create concepts out of thin air and in contradiction to reality. It makes us feel safe that some all powerful entity gave us rights so we make it so.  Your words painted a beautiful and stirring picture complete with harps and accompanied by a chorus.  However that is just my imagination.  There are no harps and no chorus.  Same thing with rights.  If you have the right to life why do people die that don't want to?
Click to expand...


Yet you DEMAND that no one has a natural right to USE THEIR ABILITIES unless they are first GRANTED THE RIGHT TO DO SO.  Your argument is RIDICULOUS.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And are you not able to observe that people think?  That they speak?  That they care?  That they hope?  That they enjoy activties without or without others?  That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish?  That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have?  To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that?  To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?
> 
> The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind.  They didn't make it up.  That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way.  They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can observe people do those things.  I call them abilities.  A very dominant ability we as humans have is the ability to create concepts out of thin air and in contradiction to reality. It makes us feel safe that some all powerful entity gave us rights so we make it so.  Your words painted a beautiful and stirring picture complete with harps and accompanied by a chorus.  However that is just my imagination.  There are no harps and no chorus.  Same thing with rights.  If you have the right to life why do people die that don't want to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yet you DEMAND that no one has a natural right to USE THEIR ABILITIES unless they are first GRANTED THE RIGHT TO DO SO*.  Your argument is RIDICULOUS.
Click to expand...


Where did you get that idea?


----------



## RKMBrown

asclepias said:


> rkmbrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes i can observe people do those things.  I call them abilities.  A very dominant ability we as humans have is the ability to create concepts out of thin air and in contradiction to reality. It makes us feel safe that some all powerful entity gave us rights so we make it so.  Your words painted a beautiful and stirring picture complete with harps and accompanied by a chorus.  However that is just my imagination.  There are no harps and no chorus.  Same thing with rights.  If you have the right to life why do people die that don't want to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yet you demand that no one has a natural right to use their abilities unless they are first granted the right to do so*.  Your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...


omfg


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one confusing the terms.  A right is man made. Ability is inherent.  I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right.  You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if a one man gives another the right to drill for oil on his land ?
Click to expand...

How about you explain what makes that a natural right.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down.  Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it.  I never saw my or anyone else's right to life.  I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.
> 
> What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist?  For that matter why is it import to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And are you not able to observe that people think?  That they speak?  That they care?  That they hope?  That they enjoy activties without or without others?  That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish?  That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have?  To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that?  To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?
> 
> The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind.  They didn't make it up.  That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way.  They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can observe people do those things.  I call them abilities.  A very dominant ability we as humans have is the ability to create concepts out of thin air and in contradiction to reality. It makes us feel safe that some all powerful entity gave us rights so we make it so.  Your words painted a beautiful and stirring picture complete with harps and accompanied by a chorus.  However that is just my imagination.  There are no harps and no chorus.  Same thing with rights.  If you have the right to life why do people die that don't want to?
Click to expand...


No.  Abilities may or may not be inherently 'natural', but abilities can be taken away or denied anybody.  But rights remain just the same.  I may deny you the ability to speak, but I cannot deny you the right to speak.  I cannot remove your rights; I can only deny you the ability to enjoy them.

You are disingenuous though when you twist a totally secular argument into a religious one.  That suggests an agenda unworthy of one who would might want to be perceived as intelligently thoughtful.  But of course choice of being disingenuous or intelligently thoughtful is also an unalienable right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right.  An unalienable right cannot be taken away.  It can only be infringed or denied.  It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.
> 
> The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it was men who wrote the Constitution that makes the claim that these rights exist.  Again---a man made concept. If humans did not exist neither would the concept of rights.
Click to expand...


Yet, even under those circumstances, rights would still exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go over the terms again. Inalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't be violated", that's what "right" means. "Inalienable right" means an "innate, inseparable freedom that shouldn't be violated".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable:
> 
> adjective
> 1.
> *unable to be taken away from* or given away by the possessor.
> 
> Right:
> noun
> 2. a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable right = oxymoron
Click to expand...


Oxymoron: A combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as _cruel kindness_); _broadly_*:*     something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.

Entitlement: The condition of having a right to have, do, or get something.

It seems that the only problem here is still your lack of comprehension, not the actual terms being used.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rkmbrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> *yet you demand that no one has a natural right to use their abilities unless they are first granted the right to do so*.  Your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> omfg
Click to expand...



Thats not a legitimate answer. If you misunderstood something I wrote please quote it so I can clarify it.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And are you not able to observe that people think?  That they speak?  That they care?  That they hope?  That they enjoy activties without or without others?  That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish?  That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have?  To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that?  To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?
> 
> The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind.  They didn't make it up.  That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way.  They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can observe people do those things.  I call them abilities.  A very dominant ability we as humans have is the ability to create concepts out of thin air and in contradiction to reality. It makes us feel safe that some all powerful entity gave us rights so we make it so.  Your words painted a beautiful and stirring picture complete with harps and accompanied by a chorus.  However that is just my imagination.  There are no harps and no chorus.  Same thing with rights.  If you have the right to life why do people die that don't want to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Abilities may or may not be inherently 'natural', but abilities can be taken away or denied anybody.  But rights remain just the same.  I may deny you the ability to speak, but I cannot deny you the right to speak.  I cannot remove your rights; I can only deny you the ability to enjoy them.
> 
> You are disingenuous though when you twist a totally secular argument into a religious one.  That suggests an agenda unworthy of one who would might want to be perceived as intelligently thoughtful.  But of course choice of being disingenuous or intelligently thoughtful is also an unalienable right.
Click to expand...


All abilities are inherent. Name me one that is not.  Yes abilities can be taken away but so can rights. Matter of fact your right can be taken away far easier than your ability.  If you deny me the right to speak I can still exercise my ability to speak and suffer the consequences.  

Claiming I am being disingenuous smacks of frustration.  Lets be more adult in this debate because I would rather see you present some proof instead of leaving the debate angry. I could easily get frustrated that everyone has avoided my question concerning the right to life.  If we have a right to life why do people die before they want to?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you repeat that louder for the board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it only exists in the human mind.  Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
Click to expand...


If we don't have a right to life, why are we born before we are granted the right to life by the government, or whatever entity that it is you think grants rights?



Asclepias said:


> Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.
> 
> Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.



The discussion of God is irrelevant to the concept of  natural rights, just like it is for evolution. The fact that you  continue to go back to an irrelevant point in an attempt to prove that  you are right actually has the opposite result of what you want. 

That said, how does equipping something equal granting something? God may be perfectly capable setting up the rules that allow things to happen without having to intervene simply because you lack the ability to conceptualize how He does it. Unless, of course, you think gravity is a right because God thought of it.



Asclepias said:


> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying.



Yet you keep repeating the same ridiculous assertion that you are right without actually supplying any evidence to back up your position.



Asclepias said:


> The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.



You believe that a person who doesn't believe in God believes that rights were granted by God? How, exactly, do you think that works?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go over the terms again. Inalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't be violated", that's what "right" means. "Inalienable right" means an "innate, inseparable freedom that shouldn't be violated".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable:
> 
> adjective
> 1.
> *unable to be taken away from* or given away by the possessor.
> 
> Right:
> noun
> 2. a moral or legal *entitlement* to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
> 
> 
> 
> Inalienable right = oxymoron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oxymoron: A combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as _cruel kindness_); _broadly_*:*     something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.
> 
> Entitlement: The condition of having a *right* to have, do, or get something.
> 
> It seems that the only problem here is still your lack of comprehension, not the actual terms being used.
Click to expand...


Depends on which definition suits your argument doesn't it? Your definition sends you in a loop. Use a definition that doesn't create logic loops. You would look a little more intelligent.

Entitlement:

the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind.
> 
> Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I scrolled up and do not see the answer to my question.  Please help me see your answer to the question I put to you.
> 
> There is a 3rd option to your question on if I am being stubborn or stupid. Have you considered the possibility that you just happen to be wrong?  That would keep you from being rude.  I would hate for you to bow out of the conversation before you provided proof that something invisible gave us a set of entitlements.
Click to expand...


The third option would be more viable as an alternative if you didn't routinely ignore the fact that multiple people have answered your questions in detail, yet you keep insisting that your questions are unanswered. That is why I keep pointing out that you are close minded.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also means that it can't be taken away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far no one has taken away any of my rights, despite one person insisting that he, personally, granted them to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you make me angry I just might take away your right to breath. I will do so at a time of my choosing so when it occurs you will know I revoked your right.
Click to expand...


That almost sounded like a threat. The problem with that is that you never actually gave me the right to breathe, and are incapable of taking it away, even if you actually tried to prove that killing me is taking away my rights.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't have a right to life, why are we born before we are granted the right to life by the government, or whatever entity that it is you think grants rights?
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of God is irrelevant to the concept of  natural rights, just like it is for evolution. The fact that you  continue to go back to an irrelevant point in an attempt to prove that  you are right actually has the opposite result of what you want.
> 
> That said, how does equipping something equal granting something? God may be perfectly capable setting up the rules that allow things to happen without having to intervene simply because you lack the ability to conceptualize how He does it. Unless, of course, you think gravity is a right because God thought of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you keep repeating the same ridiculous assertion that you are right without actually supplying any evidence to back up your position.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe that a person who doesn't believe in God believes that rights were granted by God? How, exactly, do you think that works?
Click to expand...


Asking me a question is not an answer to my question. Answer my question then I will tackle the logic in your question.  If you cant or wont answer my question I will have to assume you are this point trolling because you don't want to admit you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded is my whole point. Rights are granted. In the case of gorillas and wolves for example the dominant animal grants or bestows those rights. In the case of wolves for example the alpha wolf eats first.  The other wolves have the ability to eat first but they dont have the right.  Except I never heard a wolf call it a right. The naturalist calls it a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your whole point  is that wolves have rights than you have to admit that they are, by definition, natural. That would mean that you have been wrong every time you argued otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not have read the rest of my post. People established the concept of rights not wolves.  I have yet to hear a wolf explain pack behavior as a system of rights.  The wolves actions are an instinctual response specific to their system of social living just like ours.
Click to expand...


People also established the concept of zero. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred. Does that mean that it isn't actually real?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.
> 
> Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind.
> 
> Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scrolled up and do not see the answer to my question.  Please help me see your answer to the question I put to you.
> 
> There is a 3rd option to your question on if I am being stubborn or stupid. Have you considered the possibility that you just happen to be wrong?  That would keep you from being rude.  I would hate for you to bow out of the conversation before you provided proof that something invisible gave us a set of entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The third option would be more viable as an alternative if you didn't routinely ignore the fact that multiple people have answered your questions in detail, yet you keep insisting that your questions are unanswered. That is why I keep pointing out that you are close minded.
Click to expand...


Its pretty apparent when someone answers a question. The reference the topic in the question and answer it. They don't ask me a question in response to my question. They dont write a dissertation explaining the price of clam chowder. That would be avoiding the question I posed because you know you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate.  You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh...Yeah I can.  Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?
Click to expand...


I didn't need to be told that I have rights anyomore than I had to be told I can think.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far no one has taken away any of my rights, despite one person insisting that he, personally, granted them to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you make me angry I just might take away your right to breath. I will do so at a time of my choosing so when it occurs you will know I revoked your right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That almost sounded like a threat.* The problem with that is that you never actually gave me the right to breathe, and are incapable of taking it away, even if you actually tried to prove that killing me is taking away my rights.
Click to expand...


Anything to divert from your inability to answer the question? If you truly believed that I apologize for frightening you. I'm pretty sure you can go back and find the proof where I granted you the right to breath.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't have a right to life, why are we born before we are granted the right to life by the government, or whatever entity that it is you think grants rights?
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of God is irrelevant to the concept of  natural rights, just like it is for evolution. The fact that you  continue to go back to an irrelevant point in an attempt to prove that  you are right actually has the opposite result of what you want.
> 
> That said, how does equipping something equal granting something? God may be perfectly capable setting up the rules that allow things to happen without having to intervene simply because you lack the ability to conceptualize how He does it. Unless, of course, you think gravity is a right because God thought of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you keep repeating the same ridiculous assertion that you are right without actually supplying any evidence to back up your position.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe that a person who doesn't believe in God believes that rights were granted by God? How, exactly, do you think that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking me a question is not an answer to my question. Answer my question then I will tackle the logic in your question.  If you cant or wont answer my question I will have to assume you are this point trolling because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Just an FYI, I was mocking you in the form of a question, not asking you a question.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...Yeah I can.  Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't need to be told that I have rights anyomore than I had to be told I can think.
Click to expand...


So you admit you think you have rights?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I scrolled up and do not see the answer to my question.  Please help me see your answer to the question I put to you.
> 
> There is a 3rd option to your question on if I am being stubborn or stupid. Have you considered the possibility that you just happen to be wrong?  That would keep you from being rude.  I would hate for you to bow out of the conversation before you provided proof that something invisible gave us a set of entitlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The third option would be more viable as an alternative if you didn't routinely ignore the fact that multiple people have answered your questions in detail, yet you keep insisting that your questions are unanswered. That is why I keep pointing out that you are close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its pretty apparent when someone answers a question. The reference the topic in the question and answer it. They don't ask me a question in response to my question. They dont write a dissertation explaining the price of clam chowder. That would be avoiding the question I posed because you know you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Yet, despite the fact that it is apparent, you keep missing it. What does that say about you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you make me angry I just might take away your right to breath. I will do so at a time of my choosing so when it occurs you will know I revoked your right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That almost sounded like a threat.* The problem with that is that you never actually gave me the right to breathe, and are incapable of taking it away, even if you actually tried to prove that killing me is taking away my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything to divert from your inability to answer the question? If you truly believed that I apologize for frightening you. I'm pretty sure you can go back and find the proof where I granted you the right to breath.
Click to expand...


You think entirely too much of yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...Yeah I can.  Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to be told that I have rights anyomore than I had to be told I can think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you think you have rights?
Click to expand...


No, I have rights, no matter what I think.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your whole point  is that wolves have rights than you have to admit that they are, by definition, natural. That would mean that you have been wrong every time you argued otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must not have read the rest of my post. People established the concept of rights not wolves.  I have yet to hear a wolf explain pack behavior as a system of rights.  The wolves actions are an instinctual response specific to their system of social living just like ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of zero. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred. Does that mean that it isn't actually real?
Click to expand...


People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.  

You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't have a right to life, why are we born before we are granted the right to life by the government, or whatever entity that it is you think grants rights?
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of God is irrelevant to the concept of  natural rights, just like it is for evolution. The fact that you  continue to go back to an irrelevant point in an attempt to prove that  you are right actually has the opposite result of what you want.
> 
> That said, how does equipping something equal granting something? God may be perfectly capable setting up the rules that allow things to happen without having to intervene simply because you lack the ability to conceptualize how He does it. Unless, of course, you think gravity is a right because God thought of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you keep repeating the same ridiculous assertion that you are right without actually supplying any evidence to back up your position.
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that a person who doesn't believe in God believes that rights were granted by God? How, exactly, do you think that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking me a question is not an answer to my question. Answer my question then I will tackle the logic in your question.  If you cant or wont answer my question I will have to assume you are this point trolling because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, I was mocking you in the form of a question, not asking you a question.
Click to expand...



So you were afraid to tackle the question and decided to mock me for it?  Why are you even debating then?  Thanks for admitting you have no answer.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That almost sounded like a threat.* The problem with that is that you never actually gave me the right to breathe, and are incapable of taking it away, even if you actually tried to prove that killing me is taking away my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to divert from your inability to answer the question? If you truly believed that I apologize for frightening you. I'm pretty sure you can go back and find the proof where I granted you the right to breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think entirely too much of yourself.
Click to expand...


Dont be threatened by my confidence. Its ugly that you have no confidence in yourself but would be afraid that I do. I'm actually a humble guy and opened to changing my position if you could only articulate your argument intelligently enough to show me where my natural rights reside separate from someone just saying so.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to be told that I have rights anyomore than I had to be told I can think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you think you have rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have rights, no matter what I think.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## RKMBrown

What happens when two Trolls walk into a bar...


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a one man gives another the right to drill for oil on his land ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about you explain what makes that a natural right.
Click to expand...


You wanted an example of someone giving someone else a right.  I gave you one.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that you are subject to gravity?  Who told you that you have a liver?  A heart?  A brain?  That you think?  That you are a jerk sometimes?  That you have ability to be a thoughtful person?  That you love?  That you hope?  That you want?  That you care?  Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?
> 
> Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down.  Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it.  I never saw my or anyone else's right to life.  I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.
> 
> What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist?  For that matter why is it import to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And are you not able to observe that people think?  That they speak?  That they care?  That they hope?  That they enjoy activties without or without others?  That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish?  That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have?  To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that?  To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?
> 
> The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind.  They didn't make it up.  That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way.  They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.
Click to expand...


If man is already acting on his observable natural rights why would he need to incorporate it into his own value system. Is it not already there are you claim ?


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck

I'm in need of some rights man.  I need to drop  off my suit at the cleaners. Can you take time out to grant me some rights to do that?


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck
> 
> I'm in need of some rights man.  I need to drop  off my suit at the cleaners. Can you take time out to grant me some rights to do that?



no problem---I'll offer you the protection of your natural laundry rights. Go in peace. If you look around you will notice I've obviously given other people this right too because they are doing it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must not have read the rest of my post. People established the concept of rights not wolves.  I have yet to hear a wolf explain pack behavior as a system of rights.  The wolves actions are an instinctual response specific to their system of social living just like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of zero. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred. Does that mean that it isn't actually real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.
Click to expand...


The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.



Asclepias said:


> You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?



Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking me a question is not an answer to my question. Answer my question then I will tackle the logic in your question.  If you cant or wont answer my question I will have to assume you are this point trolling because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, I was mocking you in the form of a question, not asking you a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you were afraid to tackle the question and decided to mock me for it?  Why are you even debating then?  Thanks for admitting you have no answer.
Click to expand...



No, I was mocking you for thinking that an atheist can't get past the belief that rights are endowed by God. Can you explain how that works? Is God controlling his mind? Perhaps it is aliens that are using mind control rays.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of zero. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred. Does that mean that it isn't actually real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.
Click to expand...


I'll bite----how does the concept of natural rights predate history ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything to divert from your inability to answer the question? If you truly believed that I apologize for frightening you. I'm pretty sure you can go back and find the proof where I granted you the right to breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think entirely too much of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont be threatened by my confidence. Its ugly that you have no confidence in yourself but would be afraid that I do. I'm actually a humble guy and opened to changing my position if you could only articulate your argument intelligently enough to show me where my natural rights reside separate from someone just saying so.
Click to expand...


Misplaced confidence, aka arrogance, never threatened me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you think you have rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have rights, no matter what I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


Done.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck
> 
> I'm in need of some rights man.  I need to drop  off my suit at the cleaners. Can you take time out to grant me some rights to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no problem---I'll offer you the protection of your natural laundry rights. Go in peace. If you look around you will notice I've obviously given other people this right too because they are doing it.
Click to expand...


Sweet man.  I did notice you have been very busy handing out natural laundry rights. I dont know what I would do without them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if a one man gives another the right to drill for oil on his land ?
> 
> 
> 
> How about you explain what makes that a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanted an example of someone giving someone else a right.  I gave you one.
Click to expand...


Apparently you missed the word natural in my post, what a surprise.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of zero. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred. Does that mean that it isn't actually real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.
Click to expand...


How do you know the concept of natural rights predates history?  This ought to be good for some laughs.

Its merely a diversion attempting to point out flaws in anything when you have yet to answer a question I have asked.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, I was mocking you in the form of a question, not asking you a question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were afraid to tackle the question and decided to mock me for it?  Why are you even debating then?  Thanks for admitting you have no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was mocking you for thinking that an atheist can't get past the belief that rights are endowed by God. Can you explain how that works? Is God controlling his mind? Perhaps it is aliens that are using mind control rays.
Click to expand...


Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I was an atheist?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bite----how does the concept of natural rights predate history ?
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you bought into the lie that it is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment despite the fact that the concept was a fundamental part of the Zoroastrian philosophy.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think entirely too much of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be threatened by my confidence. Its ugly that you have no confidence in yourself but would be afraid that I do. I'm actually a humble guy and opened to changing my position if you could only articulate your argument intelligently enough to show me where my natural rights reside separate from someone just saying so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misplaced confidence, aka arrogance, never threatened me.
Click to expand...


My confidence is in the right place. If it was arrogance I would have already dismissed you as a fool with no ability to transfer any new or helpful information. You must have been afraid. Why else would it occur to you to say this?



Quantum Windbag said:


> That almost sounded like a threat.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite----how does the concept of natural rights predate history ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you bought into the lie that it is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment despite the fact that the concept was a fundamental part of the Zoroastrian philosophy.
Click to expand...


I didn't buy into anything. I think the whole natural rights theory is hogwash.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite----how does the concept of natural rights predate history ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you bought into the lie that it is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment despite the fact that the concept was a fundamental part of the Zoroastrian philosophy.
Click to expand...


Great answer!  Wait...you actually didn't provide an answer but you did come up with another....diversion!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know the concept of natural rights predates history?  This ought to be good for some laughs.
> 
> Its merely a diversion attempting to point out flaws in anything when you have yet to answer a question I have asked.
Click to expand...


Because, unlike you, I read. 

The diversion here is you insisting on asking a question I have already answered, and then insisting that the fact that I don't keep answering is proof that I don't have an answer. All it really proves is that, despite your delusion that you are God, you don't control my actions, or my rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you were afraid to tackle the question and decided to mock me for it?  Why are you even debating then?  Thanks for admitting you have no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was mocking you for thinking that an atheist can't get past the belief that rights are endowed by God. Can you explain how that works? Is God controlling his mind? Perhaps it is aliens that are using mind control rays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I was an atheist?
Click to expand...


I recall calling you deluded, stupid, and ignorant, but I don't ever recall calling you an atheist. Can you point it out for me, I hate to think that my memory is failing me.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the concept of natural rights predates history?  This ought to be good for some laughs.
> 
> Its merely a diversion attempting to point out flaws in anything when you have yet to answer a question I have asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, I read.
> 
> The diversion here is you insisting on asking a question I have already answered, and then insisting that the fact that I don't keep answering is proof that I don't have an answer. All it really proves is that, despite your delusion that you are God, you don't control my actions, or my rights.
Click to expand...


Unless you scrubbed your post you never answered my question.  If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?  If you have posted that answer please help a brother out and provide the quote or at least the post# the answer is in. Can you accomplish that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be threatened by my confidence. Its ugly that you have no confidence in yourself but would be afraid that I do. I'm actually a humble guy and opened to changing my position if you could only articulate your argument intelligently enough to show me where my natural rights reside separate from someone just saying so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misplaced confidence, aka arrogance, never threatened me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My confidence is in the right place. If it was arrogance I would have already dismissed you as a fool with no ability to transfer any new or helpful information. You must have been afraid. Why else would it occur to you to say this?
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That almost sounded like a threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What's your point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite----how does the concept of natural rights predate history ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you bought into the lie that it is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment despite the fact that the concept was a fundamental part of the Zoroastrian philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great answer!  Wait...you actually didn't provide an answer but you did come up with another....diversion!
Click to expand...


LEarn to read, you might learn something.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was mocking you for thinking that an atheist can't get past the belief that rights are endowed by God. Can you explain how that works? Is God controlling his mind? Perhaps it is aliens that are using mind control rays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I was an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recall calling you deluded, stupid, and ignorant, but I don't ever recall calling you an atheist. Can you point it out for me, I hate to think that my memory is failing me.
Click to expand...


Oops my bad. Let me correct myself.

Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the concept of natural rights predates history?  This ought to be good for some laughs.
> 
> Its merely a diversion attempting to point out flaws in anything when you have yet to answer a question I have asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, I read.
> 
> The diversion here is you insisting on asking a question I have already answered, and then insisting that the fact that I don't keep answering is proof that I don't have an answer. All it really proves is that, despite your delusion that you are God, you don't control my actions, or my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you scrubbed your post you never answered my question.  If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?  If you have posted that answer please help a brother out and provide the quote or at least the post# the answer is in. Can you accomplish that?
Click to expand...


I answered it a long time ago, you refused to reply. My guess is that, if I answered again, you would again refuse to answer, then come back later and pretend the fact that you aren't responding to my posts proves I didn't actually make them.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you bought into the lie that it is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment despite the fact that the concept was a fundamental part of the Zoroastrian philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great answer!  Wait...you actually didn't provide an answer but you did come up with another....diversion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEarn to read, you might learn something.
Click to expand...


I'm reading your posts and responding to them. Where did you answer the question?



> how does the concept of natural rights predate history ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I was an atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recall calling you deluded, stupid, and ignorant, but I don't ever recall calling you an atheist. Can you point it out for me, I hate to think that my memory is failing me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops my bad. Let me correct myself.
> 
> Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?
Click to expand...


That would be you.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misplaced confidence, aka arrogance, never threatened me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My confidence is in the right place. If it was arrogance I would have already dismissed you as a fool with no ability to transfer any new or helpful information. You must have been afraid. Why else would it occur to you to say this?
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That almost sounded like a threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


You were threatened.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall calling you deluded, stupid, and ignorant, but I don't ever recall calling you an atheist. Can you point it out for me, I hate to think that my memory is failing me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops my bad. Let me correct myself.
> 
> Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be you.
Click to expand...


Please post the quote.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> My confidence is in the right place. If it was arrogance I would have already dismissed you as a fool with no ability to transfer any new or helpful information. You must have been afraid. Why else would it occur to you to say this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were threatened.
Click to expand...


Will you ever learn to read? I said it almost sounded like a threat, not that it was, or that I felt threatened.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you bought into the lie that it is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment despite the fact that the concept was a fundamental part of the Zoroastrian philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great answer!  Wait...you actually didn't provide an answer but you did come up with another....diversion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEarn to read, you might learn something.
Click to expand...




> Natural Law in the scientific sense is, thus, an old-fashioned concept, and one seldom hears working scientists talking about natural laws anymore. In fact, what they are inclined to say is more like This is the model that makes most sense to me right now. Physicists, especially of the Copenhagen philosophy, regard law as an unfortunate term in itself, redolent of theology, and consciously banish the word from their vocabulary


. 

Natural Law, or Don?t Put a Rubber on Your Willy (Robert Anton Wilson) | The Anarchist Library


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, I read.
> 
> The diversion here is you insisting on asking a question I have already answered, and then insisting that the fact that I don't keep answering is proof that I don't have an answer. All it really proves is that, despite your delusion that you are God, you don't control my actions, or my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you scrubbed your post you never answered my question.  If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?  If you have posted that answer please help a brother out and provide the quote or at least the post# the answer is in. Can you accomplish that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered it a long time ago, you refused to reply. My guess is that, if I answered again, you would again refuse to answer, then come back later and pretend the fact that you aren't responding to my posts proves I didn't actually make them.
Click to expand...


Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you ever learn to read? I said it almost sounded like a threat, not that it was, or that I felt threatened.
Click to expand...


Will you learn to read?  Why would it even occur to you that it sounded like a threat? I cant get to you unless you really believe I can control your breathing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops my bad. Let me correct myself.
> 
> Full of assumptions aren't you?  Who told you I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the quote.
Click to expand...


No problem.



Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you repeat that louder for the board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it only exists in the human mind.  Yes it is a grant of  privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator  which means they are granted or given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's  an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity  for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are  you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk'  goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the  idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a  turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in  the way you're using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an  inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we  have a right to live correct?
> 
> Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying  me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.
> 
> Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say  however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these  things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you  error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of  phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the  human mind.
Click to expand...


Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you  sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great answer!  Wait...you actually didn't provide an answer but you did come up with another....diversion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LEarn to read, you might learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Law in the scientific sense is, thus, an old-fashioned concept, and one seldom hears working scientists talking about natural laws anymore. In fact, what they are inclined to say is more like This is the model that makes most sense to me right now. Physicists, especially of the Copenhagen philosophy, regard law as an unfortunate term in itself, redolent of theology, and consciously banish the word from their vocabulary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Natural Law, or Don?t Put a Rubber on Your Willy (Robert Anton Wilson) | The Anarchist Library
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you scrubbed your post you never answered my question.  If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?  If you have posted that answer please help a brother out and provide the quote or at least the post# the answer is in. Can you accomplish that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered it a long time ago, you refused to reply. My guess is that, if I answered again, you would again refuse to answer, then come back later and pretend the fact that you aren't responding to my posts proves I didn't actually make them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...


Let me help you with that.

Read
the
thread.
​


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's  an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity  for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are  you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk'  goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the  idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a  turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in  the way you're using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an  inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we  have a right to live correct?
> 
> Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying  me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.
> 
> Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say  however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these  things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you  error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of  phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the  human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.
> 
> If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you  sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.
Click to expand...


Yes I did see you lie again.  I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?  Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever learn to read? I said it almost sounded like a threat, not that it was, or that I felt threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you learn to read?  Why would it even occur to you that it sounded like a threat? I cant get to you unless you really believe I can control your breathing.
Click to expand...


Look up the word almost and get back to me.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?
> 
> It's not a 'grant', it's  an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity  for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are  you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk'  goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the  idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a  turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in  the way you're using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an  inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we  have a right to live correct?
> 
> Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying  me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.
> 
> Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say  however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these  things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you  error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of  phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the  human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.
> 
> If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you  sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.
Click to expand...


get past ?  He doesn't even believe in God. He certainly isn't going to acknowledge any God given right if someone chooses that wording so he goes with natural right. It's the PC thing to do.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered it a long time ago, you refused to reply. My guess is that, if I answered again, you would again refuse to answer, then come back later and pretend the fact that you aren't responding to my posts proves I didn't actually make them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you with that.
> 
> Read
> the
> thread.
> ​
Click to expand...


Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it.  Why are you running?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an  inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we  have a right to live correct?
> 
> Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying  me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.
> 
> Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say  however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these  things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you  error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of  phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the  human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.
> 
> If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you  sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did see you lie again.  I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?  Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?
Click to expand...


Excuse me, genius, how is telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God not telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an  inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we  have a right to live correct?
> 
> Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying  me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.
> 
> Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say  however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these  things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you  error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of  phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the  human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.
> 
> If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you  sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> get past ?  He doesn't even believe in God. He certainly isn't going to acknowledge any God given right if someone chooses that wording so he goes with natural right. It's the PC thing to do.
Click to expand...


That was my point.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with that.
> 
> Read
> the
> thread.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it.  Why are you running?
Click to expand...


desperation-----he has nothing


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever learn to read? I said it almost sounded like a threat, not that it was, or that I felt threatened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you learn to read?  Why would it even occur to you that it sounded like a threat? I cant get to you unless you really believe I can control your breathing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up the word almost and get back to me.
Click to expand...


I did.  Now why would it occur to you that it was almost a threat?  Was it a natural fear or did I give it to you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its real simple either answer the question or point me to where you answered it. What are you afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with that.
> 
> Read
> the
> thread.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it.  Why are you running?
Click to expand...


Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with that.
> 
> Read
> the
> thread.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it.  Why are you running?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> desperation-----he has nothing
Click to expand...



I got you to admit that rights exist outside government.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd time you have avoided the question.  If we have an  inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we  have a right to live correct?
> 
> Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying  me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.
> 
> Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.
> 
> I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say  however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these  things instead of them being there as a product of biology.  I think you  error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of  phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the  human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.
> 
> If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you  sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> get past ?  He doesn't even believe in God. He certainly isn't going to acknowledge any God given right if someone chooses that wording so he goes with natural right. It's the PC thing to do.
Click to expand...


Quatnam is full of it. He likes to play games when caught in a lie. He actually thinks he is smart enough to fool an adult.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with that.
> 
> Read
> the
> thread.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it.  Why are you running?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.
Click to expand...


I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link.   Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not helping. Thats a diversion from the fact you cant man up and answer the question or provide a link to where you already posted it.  Why are you running?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link.   Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> close to the unicorn argument again---yelling "I have been violated" is evidence that you had a right ?
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
> I encourage you to try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ?  Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.
Click to expand...

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
> I encourage you to try again.
> 
> 
> 
> so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ?  Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
Click to expand...


Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ?  Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
Click to expand...


Of course that claim is ridiculous.  Quite the opposite has occurred.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that claim is ridiculous.  Quite the opposite has occurred.
Click to expand...


Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?


----------



## MaryL

Hmm. No. Rights are totally man made. No right to bare arms, no right to vote. Intellectual exercises. No right to free speech, no entitlements, nada tomata. I see an old man and a dog run down in the street , without note..., I am thinking how  vile America  has become. Every made up thing or cause has rights. Nothing makes that apparent than "Gay Rights". Sickening.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.
> 
> If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you  sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did see you lie again.  I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?  Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, genius, how is telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God not telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God?
Click to expand...


Its not. I asked you to post were I said it. Can you you do that or is that just what you wanted it to mean?  Remember if you make up a post I will report you simply for being a liar.  I want to see where I said the words you claim I said.  You should be able to quote them along with your claim.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that claim is ridiculous.  Quite the opposite has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?
Click to expand...


Do you have about an hour to read?  We have argued the matter from top to bottom; you're responses are not normal.

Is it possibility that you're not reading the posts of others or are not really thinking about the matter.

I hesitate to think that you are stupid given your insight about the nature of my error in the above.

Are you trolling?  

Look, sometimes I go to this board when I'm trying to hammer out a piece on a complex topic for my blog.  Intellectual adversity is useful as it helps one clarify and justified my thoughts and ideas, get rid of the garbage, like what I wrote in the above.  LOL!  Wouldn't want that on my blog.  So it makes no difference to me either way.  I don't care if I'm being trolled.  I' benefit immensely from adversity, real or feigned.  This is productive for me . . . but what are you getting out of this?

I'm just curious as I don't have the kind of time you apparently have to waste.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link.   Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
Click to expand...


I want you to tell me the answer. Are you afraid to answer the question?  There are now 2 questions you are avoiding.

If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?

How do you know the concept of natural rights pre-date history?


----------



## Foxfyre

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that claim is ridiculous.  Quite the opposite has occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have about an hour to read?  We have argued the matter from top to bottom; you're responses are not normal.
> 
> Is it possibility that you're not reading the posts of others or are not really thinking about the matter.
> 
> I hesitate to think that you are stupid given your insight about the nature of my error in the above.
> 
> Are you trolling?
> 
> Look, sometimes I go to this board when I'm trying to hammer out a piece on a complex topic for my blog.  Intellectual adversity is useful as it helps one clarify and justified my thoughts and ideas, get rid of the garbage, like what I wrote in the above.  LOL!  Wouldn't want that on my blog.  So it makes no difference to me either way.  I don't care if I'm being trolled.  I' benefit immensely from adversity, real or feigned.  This is productive for me . . . but what are you getting out of this?
> 
> I'm just curious as I don't have the kind of time you apparently have to waste.
Click to expand...


Maybe if you could be wrong quicker you would have more time. The amount of words you use when attempting to make a point doesn't get you extra credit or anything. We can do anything we want with our time. No need for rights.
Look ma---no rights !


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have about an hour to read?  We have argued the matter from top to bottom; you're responses are not normal.
> 
> Is it possibility that you're not reading the posts of others or are not really thinking about the matter.
> 
> I hesitate to think that you are stupid given your insight about the nature of my error in the above.
> 
> Are you trolling?
> 
> Look, sometimes I go to this board when I'm trying to hammer out a piece on a complex topic for my blog.  Intellectual adversity is useful as it helps one clarify and justified my thoughts and ideas, get rid of the garbage, like what I wrote in the above.  LOL!  Wouldn't want that on my blog.  So it makes no difference to me either way.  I don't care if I'm being trolled.  I' benefit immensely from adversity, real or feigned.  This is productive for me . . . but what are you getting out of this?
> 
> I'm just curious as I don't have the kind of time you apparently have to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Maybe if you could be wrong quicker you would have more time. The amount of words you use when attempting to make a point doesn't get you extra credit or anything.* We can do anything we want with our time. No need for rights.
> Look ma---no rights !
Click to expand...


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.



The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.



Yes abilities and inalienable rights are 2 seperate things. Abilities exist. Inalienable rights do not. You can tell the entire concept is bogus due to the wording. It was an honorable attempt at protecting people but lets not kid ourselves into believing they really exist.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes abilities and inalienable rights are 2 seperate things. Abilities exist. Inalienable rights do not. You can tell the entire concept is bogus due to the wording. It was an honorable attempt at protecting people but lets not kid ourselves into believing they really exist.
Click to expand...


Linda Ronstadt no longer has her "unalienable right" to sing. Seems as though she can eat OK tho.


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ?  Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your admission.
This, of course, means you haven't a leg to stand on.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Now in response to the substance:  Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others*



dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been *explicitly identified and defined* as well *since the dawn of man*. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of man ?  Really ?  What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?
Click to expand...


Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better:  "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?

Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction. 

To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something new&#8212;or should I say _old_?&#8212;the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law.  The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or _nature_, if you prefer) and man:  wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.  

Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase _in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper_: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universally&#8212;by all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them.  Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately  apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction.  Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.  

"What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?  

The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man.  In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as _the dignities of man_, _the prerogatives of man_, _the entitlements of man_; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men _by_ man.

Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence.  From murder to involuntary servitude proper:  these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human.  The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners.  The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights. 

Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it?  Does it makes sense to you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ?  Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
Click to expand...


Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for your admission.
> This, of course, means you haven't a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...


Editing my post and then attempting to claim some victory ?  That's a pretty cheap tactic don't you think ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did see you lie again.  I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God?  Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, genius, how is telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God not telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not. I asked you to post were I said it. Can you you do that or is that just what you wanted it to mean?  Remember if you make up a post I will report you simply for being a liar.  I want to see where I said the words you claim I said.  You should be able to quote them along with your claim.
Click to expand...


I know, the fact that you actually told an atheist that he was hung up on the idea that rights come from God doesn't actually mean you believe that, it is actually evidence that you were lying. I can accept that if that is your position.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.
Click to expand...


It's a term so old that you can't even define it or enumerate them.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Now in response to the substance:  Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others*
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of man ?  Really ?  What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better:  "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something newor should I say _old_?the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law.  The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or _nature_, if you prefer) and man:  wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.
> 
> Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase _in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper_: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universallyby all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them.  Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately  apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction.  Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man.  In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as _the dignities of man_, _the prerogatives of man_, _the entitlements of man_; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men _by_ man.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence.  From murder to involuntary servitude proper:  these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human.  The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners.  The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.
> 
> Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it?  Does it makes sense to you?
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link.   Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to tell me the answer. Are you afraid to answer the question?  There are now 2 questions you are avoiding.
> 
> If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?
> 
> How do you know the concept of natural rights pre-date history?
Click to expand...


I already answered that question, go back and reread my posts.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
> You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.
Click to expand...


I guess since the definition was accepted that makes it right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
Click to expand...


Yet you have not provided a single example of that occurring.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to tell me the answer. Are you afraid to answer the question?  There are now 2 questions you are avoiding.
> 
> If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?
> 
> How do you know the concept of natural rights pre-date history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered that question, go back and reread my posts.
Click to expand...


Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you have not provided a single example of that occurring.
Click to expand...


He and I both did. You just refuse to see it because it hurts you to be wrong even a little bit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes abilities and inalienable rights are 2 seperate things. Abilities exist. Inalienable rights do not. You can tell the entire concept is bogus due to the wording. It was an honorable attempt at protecting people but lets not kid ourselves into believing they really exist.
Click to expand...


Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a term so old that you can't even define it or enumerate them.
Click to expand...


I cannot enumerate all the elements either, does that prove they do not exist?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes abilities and inalienable rights are 2 seperate things. Abilities exist. Inalienable rights do not. You can tell the entire concept is bogus due to the wording. It was an honorable attempt at protecting people but lets not kid ourselves into believing they really exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?
Click to expand...


I already answered that. Go back and read.  Only your question is bogus and immaterial.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now in response to the substance:  Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others*
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of man ?  Really ?  What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better:  "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something newor should I say _old_?the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law.  The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or _nature_, if you prefer) and man:  wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.
> 
> Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase _in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper_: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universallyby all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them.  Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately  apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction.  Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man.  In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as _the dignities of man_, _the prerogatives of man_, _the entitlements of man_; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men _by_ man.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence.  From murder to involuntary servitude proper:  these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human.  The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners.  The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.
> 
> Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it?  Does it makes sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The *definition* of natural rights has been destroyed over and over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess since the definition was accepted that makes it right.
Click to expand...


I guess that the fact that you believe that words mean something else proves it is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to tell me the answer. Are you afraid to answer the question?  There are now 2 questions you are avoiding.
> 
> If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?
> 
> How do you know the concept of natural rights pre-date history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that question, go back and reread my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.
Click to expand...


If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now in response to the substance:  Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others*
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better:  "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something newor should I say _old_?the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law.  The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or _nature_, if you prefer) and man:  wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.
> 
> Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase _in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper_: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universallyby all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them.  Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately  apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction.  Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man.  In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as _the dignities of man_, _the prerogatives of man_, _the entitlements of man_; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men _by_ man.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence.  From murder to involuntary servitude proper:  these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human.  The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners.  The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.
> 
> Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it?  Does it makes sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.
Click to expand...


Wrong again. The more you and the Rambling Writer stall the more I am convinced you don't have the intelligence to supply the answer.  You specifically transparently lie and avoid answering questions. The Rambling Writer puts people to sleep attempting to complicate something that is simple.


----------



## RKMBrown

MaryL said:


> Hmm. No. Rights are totally man made. No right to bare arms, no right to vote. Intellectual exercises. No right to free speech, no entitlements, nada tomata. I see an old man and a dog run down in the street , without note..., I am thinking how  vile America  has become. Every made up thing or cause has rights. Nothing makes that apparent than "Gay Rights". Sickening.



So that's why you folks are so against the concept of natural rights?  You want to do harm to people like gays?  

Nice.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Devine Right of Kings*



dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been *explicitly identified and defined* as well *since the dawn of man*. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since the dawn of man ?  Really ?  What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?
Click to expand...


As for the theory of the divine right of kings, actually, I  touched on that very thing in this thread, so, no, I haven't forgotten about the divine right of kings.  But perhaps you're raising the matter again for reasons you have yet to make clear.

*Recall: * 



dilloduck said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.
> 
> *The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution* and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.
Click to expand...


*I wrote the following, now pasted and copied, under that:*

Actually, the idea of natural rights predates the Magna Carta and the Assize of Clarendon as well.  The term for it in natural law proper is merely the latest historical iteration of it.  It may be safely inferred that they go all the way back to the dawn of man.    In history, the innate rightsessentially, life, liberty and private propertyhave been called, variously, _the human dignities_, _the human prerogatives_, _the human entitlements_ and _the natural rights of man_.

_The theory of the divine right of kings_ goes back almost as far under one banner or another, for example, _the notion of the god-emperor_.  Specifically, the former is the idea that monarchs are not subject to any earthly authority as they derive their just right of rule directly from Godofficially reasserted in history by the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century monarchs of England and France.  The god-emperor version is the same idea, except for the caveat regarding derivation; but, also, to be fair, unlike the pagan version of it, the monarchical version is predicated on the Deity of Christianity.  Hence, this didn't mean that the king could do just whatever he pleased.  Not being God himself, he was still accountable to divine authority.    

It is the inalienable right of revolt, extrapolated from Judeo-Christianity's ethical system thought as it touches on the abomination of statist idolatry verses true religious liberty, that was finally and formally asserted in natural law proper against the supposed divine right of kings _and_, by the way, against theocracy:  God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights; hence, no monarchical or theocratic despot may legitimately declare himself to be the mediator between God and man.   Kings have no absolute, divinely endowed right to rule.  The political anthem that _every man is the king of his own castle_ and the construct of the separation of church and state derive from the right of revolt in the face of despotic monarchies/theocracies.
__________________________________


I hope that's helpful.  But, again, why did you ask?  What's your point exactly?  Also, I would like to know if you see the actual substance of natural law, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of itt, not as you would have it, but as it is presented?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that question, go back and reread my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.
Click to expand...


I would take you up on the bet but I know you will try to weasel your way out of it.  You simply have no shame in your lying and no moral conviction as a man.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you have not provided a single example of that occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He and I both did. You just refuse to see it because it hurts you to be wrong even a little bit.
Click to expand...


The fact you can claim that unalienable rights are taken away doesn't actually prove that they are take away are taken away.  Show me that unalienable rights are actually alienable by showing an example of them being transferred to another person, granted to anyone in the first place, or actually taken away by any entity.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you have not provided a single example of that occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He and I both did. You just refuse to see it because it hurts you to be wrong even a little bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact you can claim that unalienable rights are taken away doesn't actually prove that they are take away are taken away.  Show me that unalienable rights are actually alienable by showing an example of them being transferred to another person, granted to anyone in the first place, or actually taken away by any entity.
Click to expand...


Provide the answers to my questions and i will gladly answer yours.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes abilities and inalienable rights are 2 seperate things. Abilities exist. Inalienable rights do not. You can tell the entire concept is bogus due to the wording. It was an honorable attempt at protecting people but lets not kid ourselves into believing they really exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already answered that. Go back and read.  Only your question is bogus and immaterial.
Click to expand...


Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results

Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. No. Rights are totally man made. No right to bare arms, no right to vote. Intellectual exercises. No right to free speech, no entitlements, nada tomata. I see an old man and a dog run down in the street , without note..., I am thinking how  vile America  has become. Every made up thing or cause has rights. Nothing makes that apparent than "Gay Rights". Sickening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that's why you folks are so against the concept of natural rights?  You want to do harm to people like gays?
> 
> Nice.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with gay people.  I just don't pretend me being straight is a right nor do I pretend them being gay is a right. Its no ones business what your sexuality is.  Also I'm not against the concept. I just give it no validity since no one can prove it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would take you up on the bet but I know you will try to weasel your way out of it.  You simply have no shame in your lying and no moral conviction as a man.
Click to expand...


You would actually stop posting on the board if I bring up the post where I answered you? How about if I point out the post where you directly replied to my answer and then claimed I didn't answer your question because I didn't actually answer a different question that I answered?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that. Go back and read.  Only your question is bogus and immaterial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results
> 
> Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?
Click to expand...


I was mocking you.  Remember that one?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would take you up on the bet but I know you will try to weasel your way out of it.  You simply have no shame in your lying and no moral conviction as a man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would actually stop posting on the board if I bring up the post where I answered you? How about if I point out the post where you directly replied to my answer and then claimed I didn't answer your question because I didn't actually answer a different question that I answered?
Click to expand...


If you were honorable I would. However, you forget I have caught you lying before and you just deny it. If you had any sort of gumption about yourself you would post the answer but we all know you are incapable of being honest. Also remember I will check your post to see if it was edited. Put up or....well you know the rest.


----------



## dblack

There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered that. Go back and read.  Only your question is bogus and immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results
> 
> Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was mocking you.  Remember that one?
Click to expand...


In other words, you lied. 

Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.



Or you all could simply answer the question I posed and stop pretending you answered it.

If we have the inalienable right to life, why do we die before we want to? 

Give me a simple answer so it wont be hidden behind any fluff. Tell it to me like I am a baby.

For example.....

We die before we want to because.......


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results
> 
> Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was mocking you.  Remember that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you lied.
> 
> Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?
Click to expand...


No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you all could simply answer the question I posed and stop pretending you answered it.
> 
> If we have the inalienable right to life, why do we die before we want to?
> 
> Give me a simple answer so it wont be hidden behind any fluff. Tell it to me like I am a baby.
Click to expand...


If this was a court I would object to the judge by saying asked and answered, and the judge wold rule sustained.

Since it isn't, I will simply tell you again to read the thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was mocking you.  Remember that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you lied.
> 
> Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?
Click to expand...


They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you all could simply answer the question I posed and stop pretending you answered it.
> 
> If we have the inalienable right to life, why do we die before we want to?
> 
> Give me a simple answer so it wont be hidden behind any fluff. Tell it to me like I am a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this was a court I would object to the judge by saying asked and answered, and the judge wold rule sustained.
> 
> Since it isn't, I will simply tell you again to read the thread.
Click to expand...


IOW you dont have an answer?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now in response to the substance:  Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others*
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better:  "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something new&#8212;or should I say _old_?&#8212;the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law.  The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or _nature_, if you prefer) and man:  wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.
> 
> Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase _in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper_: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universally&#8212;by all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them.  Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately  apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction.  Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man.  In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as _the dignities of man_, _the prerogatives of man_, _the entitlements of man_; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men _by_ man.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence.  From murder to involuntary servitude proper:  these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human.  The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners.  The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.
> 
> Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it?  Does it makes sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.
Click to expand...


In what respect, exactly?  I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible.  I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute _means_ that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you?  That's where garnylove is confused.  There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof.  Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover.  What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.  

Most importantly, natural law is the _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature.  That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through:  from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.

In any event, my next post does precisely that:  merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.

The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all. 

In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .

There are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep.  The real action's somewhere else.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you lied.
> 
> Funny how I don't lie when I mock you, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.
Click to expand...


Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too



Quantum Windbag said:


> Just an FYI, I was mocking you....


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what respect, exactly?  I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible.  I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute _means_ that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you?  That's where garnylove is confused.  There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof.  Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover.  What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.
> 
> Most importantly, natural law is the _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature.  That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through:  from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.
> 
> In any event, my next post does precisely that:  merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.
> 
> The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all.
> 
> In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .
> 
> There are not absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.
> 
> That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep.  The real action's somewhere else.
Click to expand...


Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences?  Real talk you sound like you have no friends.  Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No those were in your words remember? You lie when you post so I guess you take a break when you mock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, I was mocking you....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Editing a post to change its meaning is a violation of board rules.  It is also absolute proof that you lost the debate.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, I was mocking you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Editing a post to change its meaning is a violation of board rules.  It is also absolute proof that you lost the debate.
Click to expand...


^^^ That was a sad bluff.
You should report me then if I edited it. Go ahead because we both know it is what you said.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what respect, exactly?  I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible.  I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute _means_ that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you?  That's where garnylove is confused.  There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof.  Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover.  What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.
> 
> Most importantly, natural law is the _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature.  That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through:  from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.
> 
> In any event, my next post does precisely that:  merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.
> 
> The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all.
> 
> In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .
> 
> There are not absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.
> 
> That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep.  The real action's somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences?  Real talk you sound like you have no friends.  Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.
Click to expand...


There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write.  I don't write to impress.  I write to think and learn and share.  Projecting?  So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours.  That's all.      

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board.  I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends.  We all do, I hope.  That's what makes the world go around.  LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too.  Sure.  If that's what you all prefer.  Why not?  I'm talking to you now. 
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief.  Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that?  So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point!  Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible.  I don't know how to do that.  Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum?  You mentioned quantum physics. 


Real question.  How is it done?


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
Click to expand...


Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.

Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.

But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what respect, exactly?  I've already proven precisely what natural law and the rights thereof are in the most exacting terms possible.  I'm just guessing, but you're not under the impression that the contention that the imperatives of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute _means_ that one is thusly imbued with all the answers from a contingent position of perception, are you?  That's where garnylove is confused.  There's a number of vitally important things we can extrapolate as a result, but it doesn't tell us much at all about the cosmos and the workings thereof.  Our playground, God's gift to explore and discover.  What it does provide us with is the means to figure that puzzle out, decipher the most important truths of life with God's help and avoid error.
> 
> Most importantly, natural law is the _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature.  That's self-evident, but not to those who haven't thought the matter through:  from the fundamental imperatives of human consciousness to the extant and historical facts of practical experience and to the material ground of this engraving, the nexus between the body and the soul.
> 
> In any event, my next post does precisely that:  merely an abbreviated summary of what has already been said in greater detail elsewhere.
> 
> The moment that one can show me how it would make any practical difference to us if realty beyond the constraints of human consciousness were not absolutely aligned with our rational and empirical impressions of things, I'll concede all.
> 
> In other words, the moment that any human being can rationally make two diametrically opposed ideas both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference and show me that his resolution is free of contradiction in the absence of synthesis. . . .
> 
> There are not absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, *the absolute* that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.
> 
> That doesn't work for us at all, and frankly it should be the relativists putting you to sleep.  The real action's somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences?  Real talk you sound like you have no friends.  Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write.  I don't write to impress.  I write to think and learn and share.  Projecting?  So do they, and what they write is fascinating.
> 
> I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.
> 
> My mind and tastes just don't work like yours.  That's all.
> 
> Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board.  I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends.  We all do, I hope.  That's what makes the world go around.  LOL!
> 
> And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too.  Sure.  If that's what you all prefer.  Why not?  I'm talking to you now.
> __________________________________________________
> 
> I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.
> 
> Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief.  Just talking.
> 
> Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?
> 
> I don't know anyway to do that?  So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?
> 
> That's my point!  Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible.  I don't know how to do that.  Do you guys know something I don't.
> 
> Do you, Quantum?  You mentioned quantum physics.
> 
> 
> Real question.  How is it done?
Click to expand...


Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.


----------



## beagle9

This has become a game of spin, spin, and more spin by some here, and it is best not to get caught up in it really. I think that it becomes to much wasted time, yet wait a minute, hmmm it also sets the stage and/or creates a platform for people to show others their wrong on some things in life. So when this happens, and if they don't learn anything themselves, then maybe someone else will.  Hey it's all good then. 

Now if the person or persons being stubborn are reluctant to admit to their wrong in life, and even when they have been proven wrong on the subject matter time and time again, then they shall live in confusion instead of we the people who know better about these things. 

Now here they are refusing to join us in our right because they make everything as a game of who can confuse the most within their lives by their own choosing.  They see it and live it in this way, although it's really sad to see this, but then again it's also a possible way to get the truth out to others in life also. 

Otherwise what I mean is that if they (the ones being ignorant or are just acting ignorant), do want to be used as bait in order for the real scholars to get the job done with more ease in life, then so be it.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here.  Those are two separate things.
> 
> Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.
> 
> There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to  appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand.  There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.
> 
> Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.
> 
> But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.
Click to expand...


Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?


----------



## FA_Q2

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.
> 
> Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.
> 
> But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
Click to expand...


Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.


----------



## dilloduck

FA_Q2 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.
> 
> Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.
> 
> But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
Click to expand...


 I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. *By definition* an unalienable right *cannot be separated or taken away*. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences?  Real talk you sound like you have no friends.  Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write.  I don't write to impress.  I write to think and learn and share.  Projecting?  So do they, and what they write is fascinating.
> 
> I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.
> 
> My mind and tastes just don't work like yours.  That's all.
> 
> Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board.  I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends.  We all do, I hope.  That's what makes the world go around.  LOL!
> 
> And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too.  Sure.  If that's what you all prefer.  Why not?  I'm talking to you now.
> __________________________________________________
> 
> I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.
> 
> Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief.  Just talking.
> 
> Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?
> 
> I don't know anyway to do that?  So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?
> 
> That's my point!  Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible.  I don't know how to do that.  Do you guys know something I don't.
> 
> Do you, Quantum?  You mentioned quantum physics.
> 
> 
> Real question.  How is it done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
Click to expand...


The essence of knowing that the imperatives of natural morality are self-evident is knowing that the imperatives of human consciousness are absolute.  You've just conceded that they are absolute.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

If not, then let me ask you this:  What would constitute proof for you?

Look, in the above you asked me a specific question, but I don't think you realize that the question you asked about "natural rights" was actually more complex than the one you thought you had asked.

If you won't hear the pertinent history that you might see the reoccurring historical themes of natural morality. . . .  

In any event, I have two to three more posts of medium length, a bone to pick with Quantum and another that clearly demonstrates their existence.  But if you won't ask about or discuss points then. . . .

The matter is simple enough; only relativists make it more complex than it need be. 

Absolutism is about the concrete, not the abstract.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. *By definition* an unalienable right *cannot be separated or taken away*. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  The people who are confused are in a constant state of confusion on all topics, lower the bar for them?  Frigging communists.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences?  Real talk you sound like you have no friends.  Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write.  I don't write to impress.  I write to think and learn and share.  Projecting?  So do they, and what they write is fascinating.
> 
> I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.
> 
> My mind and tastes just don't work like yours.  That's all.
> 
> Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board.  I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends.  We all do, I hope.  That's what makes the world go around.  LOL!
> 
> And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too.  Sure.  If that's what you all prefer.  Why not?  I'm talking to you now.
> __________________________________________________
> 
> I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.
> 
> Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief.  Just talking.
> 
> Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?
> 
> I don't know anyway to do that?  So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?
> 
> That's my point!  Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible.  I don't know how to do that.  Do you guys know something I don't.
> 
> Do you, Quantum?  You mentioned quantum physics.
> 
> 
> Real question.  How is it done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
Click to expand...


Thank you for this.  You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.  

The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense.  It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.  

It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.

I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity.   But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.

But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:

*THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.*

*THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.*​


----------



## Asclepias

FA_Q2 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.
> 
> Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.
> 
> But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
Click to expand...


OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. *By definition* an unalienable right *cannot be separated or taken away*. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.
Click to expand...


So you concede that they can't be taken or transferred.  So now separated is you new word.  How can one be separated from one's rights?

Are you making a theological argument?


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write.  I don't write to impress.  I write to think and learn and share.  Projecting?  So do they, and what they write is fascinating.
> 
> I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.
> 
> My mind and tastes just don't work like yours.  That's all.
> 
> Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board.  I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends.  We all do, I hope.  That's what makes the world go around.  LOL!
> 
> And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too.  Sure.  If that's what you all prefer.  Why not?  I'm talking to you now.
> __________________________________________________
> 
> I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.
> 
> Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief.  Just talking.
> 
> Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?
> 
> I don't know anyway to do that?  So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?
> 
> That's my point!  Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible.  I don't know how to do that.  Do you guys know something I don't.
> 
> Do you, Quantum?  You mentioned quantum physics.
> 
> 
> Real question.  How is it done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for this.  You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.
> 
> The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense.  It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.
> 
> It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.
> 
> I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity.   But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.
> 
> But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:
> 
> *THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.*
> 
> *THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.*​
Click to expand...


What dichotomy ? Unalienable rights simply do not exist for the simple reason that unalienable means they can't be taken away.
It's not a twist of semantics. It's as plain as day.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. *By definition* an unalienable right *cannot be separated or taken away*. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you concede that they can't be taken or transferred.  So now separated is you new word.  How can one be separated from one's rights?
> 
> Are you making a theological argument?
Click to expand...


look up the word in any common dictionary---there are several synonyms given to define the word. Separated is not MY word----it's simply another word used to describe what "unalienable" means. It's a great word and I understand people feel it's important because it's in the Constitution but it means what it means.
It  is something that cannot be taken away, transferred by or separated from the owner.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write.  I don't write to impress.  I write to think and learn and share.  Projecting?  So do they, and what they write is fascinating.
> 
> I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.
> 
> My mind and tastes just don't work like yours.  That's all.
> 
> Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board.  I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends.  We all do, I hope.  That's what makes the world go around.  LOL!
> 
> And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too.  Sure.  If that's what you all prefer.  Why not?  I'm talking to you now.
> __________________________________________________
> 
> I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.
> 
> Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief.  Just talking.
> 
> Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?
> 
> I don't know anyway to do that?  So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?
> 
> That's my point!  Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible.  I don't know how to do that.  Do you guys know something I don't.
> 
> Do you, Quantum?  You mentioned quantum physics.
> 
> 
> Real question.  How is it done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The essence of knowing that the imperatives of natural morality are self-evident is knowing that the imperatives of human consciousness are absolute.  You've just conceded that they are absolute.
> 
> Do you understand what I'm getting at?
> 
> If not, then let me ask you this:  What would constitute proof for you?
> 
> Look, in the above you asked me a specific question, but I don't think you realize that the question you asked about "natural rights" was actually more complex than the one you thought you had asked.
> 
> If you won't hear the pertinent history that you might see the reoccurring historical themes of natural morality. . . .
> 
> In any event, I have two to three more posts of medium length, a bone to pick with Quantum and another that clearly demonstrates their existence.  But if you won't ask about or discuss points then. . . .
> 
> The matter is simple enough; only relativists make it more complex than it need be.
> 
> Absolutism is about the concrete, not the abstract.
Click to expand...


Please explain what you mean by absolute. I hope I have the specific meaning in that you mean a universal truth. I dont see where I conceded that anything was absolute about the human consciousness except mans capacity to create things out of mid air.  The fact that man does that is self evident but that does not make the creations themselves self evident. The 3rd mind is a concept not a fact. Me using it does not mean I would argue its existence with anyone. Does that make sense to you?

Short of you supplying me proof another conscious entity exists that gave us these rights I dont see how you can prove it.  Do you?

Its not that I wont hear the pertinent history. Ive heard it before. I just dont think it applies. In the end it is a concept humans made up.  Labeling the rights as inalienable or natural simply attempts to put them out of reach in the minds of the people. It is a tool of social control.  i define you some vague rights via the air and then say I am protecting them for you from "those bad people".  I just garnered your support and insured your submission to me because i am protecting you.

Even absolutism depends on the abstract. You still have to convince the people to accept a concept.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the &#8216;right to not be eaten&#8217; certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
Click to expand...


Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of knowing that the imperatives of natural morality are self-evident is knowing that the imperatives of human consciousness are absolute.  You've just conceded that they are absolute.
> 
> Do you understand what I'm getting at?
> 
> If not, then let me ask you this:  What would constitute proof for you?
> 
> Look, in the above you asked me a specific question, but I don't think you realize that the question you asked about "natural rights" was actually more complex than the one you thought you had asked.
> 
> If you won't hear the pertinent history that you might see the reoccurring historical themes of natural morality. . . .
> 
> In any event, I have two to three more posts of medium length, a bone to pick with Quantum and another that clearly demonstrates their existence.  But if you won't ask about or discuss points then. . . .
> 
> The matter is simple enough; only relativists make it more complex than it need be.
> 
> Absolutism is about the concrete, not the abstract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain what you mean by absolute. I hope I have the specific meaning in that you mean a universal truth. I dont see where I conceded that anything was absolute about the human consciousness except mans capacity to create things out of mid air.  The fact that man does that is self evident but that does not make the creations themselves self evident. The 3rd mind is a concept not a fact. Me using it does not mean I would argue its existence with anyone. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Short of you supplying me proof another conscious entity exists that gave us these rights I dont see how you can prove it.  Do you?
> 
> Its not that I wont hear the pertinent history. Ive heard it before. I just dont think it applies. In the end it is a concept humans made up.  Labeling the rights as inalienable or natural simply attempts to put them out of reach in the minds of the people. It is a tool of social control.  i define you some vague rights via the air and then say I am protecting them for you from "those bad people".  I just garnered your support and insured your submission to me because i am protecting you.
> 
> Even absolutism depends on the abstract. You still have to convince the people to accept a concept.
Click to expand...


Well said----there seems to be an attempt here to make a distinction between behaviors. Some are labeled as "natural" as to squelch any attempt debate their legitimacy or importance. Is there even such a thing a right that isn't natural ?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write.  I don't write to impress.  I write to think and learn and share.  Projecting?  So do they, and what they write is fascinating.
> 
> I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.
> 
> My mind and tastes just don't work like yours.  That's all.
> 
> Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board.  I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends.  We all do, I hope.  That's what makes the world go around.  LOL!
> 
> And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too.  Sure.  If that's what you all prefer.  Why not?  I'm talking to you now.
> __________________________________________________
> 
> I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.
> 
> Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief.  Just talking.
> 
> Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?
> 
> I don't know anyway to do that?  So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?
> 
> That's my point!  Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible.  I don't know how to do that.  Do you guys know something I don't.
> 
> Do you, Quantum?  You mentioned quantum physics.
> 
> 
> Real question.  How is it done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for this.  You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.
> 
> The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense.  It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.
> 
> It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.
> 
> I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity.   But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.
> 
> But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:
> 
> *THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.*
> 
> *THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.*​
Click to expand...


In order for me to believe that a dichotomy exists we need to change the wording.  You simply cannot have an "inalienable right"  that can be taken away.  Its not logical unless you pretend inalienable doesn't mean what it actually means. Same with natural right. All of them are man made rights.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


The worth of the behavior is a decision made by society. If a behavior is deemed worthy but not offered any protection then something's fishy.


----------



## KokomoJojo

dilloduck said:


> I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. *It only serves to confuse.*


it serves to provide "intent"


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.


----------



## dilloduck

KokomoJojo said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. *It only serves to confuse.*
> 
> 
> 
> it serves to provide "intent"
Click to expand...


agreed---it was used to show how important these behaviors were to the founding fathers however in this debate the word "unalienable" is being used to mean the same thing as "natural". That's where the confusion lies.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
Click to expand...


Is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.

If so, why?

If not, why?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why?
Click to expand...


If anything it is the concept of "natural rights" that is in the realm of metaphysical.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
Click to expand...


Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why?
Click to expand...


Depends on how high you are. 

We have to start somewhere to maintain sanity and logic. Therefore we need to say there are some observable absolutes. For example we need water to survive. That would be an absolute to me.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strike the government from the picture.
> 
> In nature, if protected they have worth, right?
Click to expand...


Yes.  

Again this is me suspending my belief they dont exist without man defining them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
> 
> If so, why?
> 
> If not, why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anything it is the concept of "natural rights" that is in the realm of metaphysical.
Click to expand...


Where are you getting natural rights in that?  Concentrate.  Is the statement true or false?


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must exist to be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.
> This, of course, means you haven't a leg to stand on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Editing my post and then attempting to claim some victory ?  That's a pretty cheap tactic don't you think ?
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact you do not have a leg to stand on.
Destruction necessitates prior existence.  No way around it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strike the government from the picture.
> 
> In nature, if protected they have worth, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they simply cease to exist.
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## M14 Shooter

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strike the government from the picture.
> 
> In nature, if protected they have worth, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they simply cease to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .
> 
> Question:
> 
> So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strike the government from the picture.
> 
> In nature, if protected they have worth, right?
Click to expand...


Only because someone has decided that they are worthy of protecting.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strike the government from the picture.
> 
> In nature, if protected they have worth, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they simply cease to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.

However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they simply cease to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
Click to expand...


sure you do----you can do anything you want. Some may try to stop you and some may encourage and assist you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron.  Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights.  I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strike the government from the picture.
> 
> In nature, if protected they have worth, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because someone has decided that they are worthy of protecting.
Click to expand...


And who decided that?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strike the government from the picture.
> 
> In nature, if protected they have worth, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because someone has decided that they are worthy of protecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who decided that?
Click to expand...


Men of course


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they simply cease to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
Click to expand...


Freedom  and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they simply cease to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.
> 
> However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.
Click to expand...


So man is not part of nature?!


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.
> 
> However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So man is not part of nature?!
Click to expand...


Not according to the definition of natural which man defined.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.
> 
> However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So man is not part of nature?!
Click to expand...


aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom  and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.
Click to expand...


Do you have the right to sleep in my house?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom  and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have the right to sleep in my house?
Click to expand...


Sure---I do it all the time


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom  and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have the right to sleep in my house?
Click to expand...


No not unless you give it to me but I have the freedom to come and take up residence by force.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.
> 
> However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So man is not part of nature?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.
Click to expand...


No you don't.  Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer.  You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.  

The Building is natural?

Yes!

Man is natural?

Yes!

Why are they both natural?

Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm:  material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .

So whatever man conceives is natural?

Yes!

But is everything he might conceive true?

For example, is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.

If yes, why?

If no, why?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So man is not part of nature?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer.  You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.
> 
> The Building is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Man is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Why are they both natural?
> 
> Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm:  material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .
> 
> So whatever man conceives is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> But is everything he might conceive true?
> 
> For example, is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
Click to expand...


Thats impossible. According to man anything man made is not natural.  What has occurred is that man has left a paper trail as evidence they have tampered with so many things they have lost track of where one concept ends and another begins.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So man is not part of nature?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer.  You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.
> 
> The Building is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Man is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Why are they both natural?
> 
> Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm:  material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .
> 
> So whatever man conceives is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> But is everything he might conceive true?
> 
> For example, is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
Click to expand...


You really need to quit jacking with the definition of Natural here. It only serves to confuse.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer.  You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.
> 
> The Building is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Man is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Why are they both natural?
> 
> Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm:  material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .
> 
> So whatever man conceives is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> But is everything he might conceive true?
> 
> For example, is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to quit jacking with the definition of Natural here. It only serves to confuse.
Click to expand...


How am I jacking with it?  Everything that is contained in the cosmos is natural.  

You're the one piling complexity on top of simplicity.  You're the one who thought a man-made building had anything to do with its substance.  

What is a building made of?  

Natural substances.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer.  You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.
> 
> The Building is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Man is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Why are they both natural?
> 
> Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm:  material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .
> 
> So whatever man conceives is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> But is everything he might conceive true?
> 
> For example, is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to quit jacking with the definition of Natural here. It only serves to confuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I jacking with it?  Everything that is contained in the cosmos is natural.
> 
> You're the one piling complexity on top of simplicity.  You're the one who thought a man-made building had anything to do with its substance.
> 
> *What is a building made of?
> 
> Natural substances.*
Click to expand...


Depends on what building. Some are made of the combination of man made substances and natural substances. Thats what synthetics are.  Either way it doesn't matter because if it did not exist without man doing it then it is not natural. For example nothing is natural about the Bay bridge.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer.  You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.
> 
> The Building is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Man is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Why are they both natural?
> 
> Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm:  material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .
> 
> So whatever man conceives is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> But is everything he might conceive true?
> 
> For example, is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats impossible. According to man anything man made is not natural.  What has occurred is that man has left a paper trail as evidence they have tampered with so many things they have lost track of where one concept ends and another begins.
Click to expand...


The only thing that matters here is _yes_ or _no_.

So are you saying that there are absolutes or not?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer.  You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.
> 
> The Building is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Man is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Why are they both natural?
> 
> Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm:  material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .
> 
> So whatever man conceives is natural?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> But is everything he might conceive true?
> 
> For example, is the following statement *self-evident* and *absolutely* true:  there are no absolutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats impossible. According to man anything man made is not natural.  What has occurred is that man has left a paper trail as evidence they have tampered with so many things they have lost track of where one concept ends and another begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that matters here is _yes_ or _no_.
> 
> So are you saying that there are absolutes or not?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats impossible. According to man anything man made is not natural.  What has occurred is that man has left a paper trail as evidence they have tampered with so many things they have lost track of where one concept ends and another begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that matters here is _yes_ or _no_.
> 
> So are you saying that there are absolutes or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Yes, they exist?

OR

No, they don't?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.
> 
> Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.
> 
> But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
Click to expand...


What good is a right to bear arms, express a religious belief, speak or write what one believes, or be secure in one's own property, etc. if it can be violated?  The Constitution did not state there is a right to have these things but, in the Bill of Rights, explicitly recognized that they existed and restrained the government from violating them?  If they are violated, does that mean they do not exist?  Or just that something or somebody chose to deny another the ability to exercise them?

P.S. There is no right to be immune to consequences for one's choices.  I have no right to not be eaten by lions if I choose to walk among them.  I have no right not to die if I jump off a tall building or to not experience severe distress if I choose to consume certain substances.  Do not confuse ability with a right.  Do not confuse choices with a right.  There can be a right to choose.  A right may allow us ability.  But they are different things.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I jacking with it?  Everything that is contained in the cosmos is natural.
> 
> You're the one piling complexity on top of simplicity.  You're the one who thought a man-made building had anything to do with its substance.
> 
> *What is a building made of?
> 
> Natural substances.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what building. Some are made of the combination of man made substances and natural substances. Thats what synthetics are.  Either way it doesn't matter because if it did not exist without man doing it then it is not natural. For example nothing is natural about the Bay bridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a bridge is made of a spiritual substance?
Click to expand...


No it is made of synthetic and natural substances and done so by man. Therefore it is not natural.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that matters here is _yes_ or _no_.
> 
> So are you saying that there are absolutes or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they exist?
> 
> OR
> 
> No, they don't?
Click to expand...


For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they exist?
> 
> OR
> 
> No, they don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.
Click to expand...


There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this.  You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.
> 
> The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense.  It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.
> 
> It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.
> 
> I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity.   But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.
> 
> But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:
> 
> *THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.*
> 
> *THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What dichotomy ? Unalienable rights simply do not exist for the simple reason that unalienable means they can't be taken away.
> It's not a twist of semantics. It's as plain as day.
Click to expand...


Plain as day to you perhaps.  But your opinion/perception/conclusion on this is completely wrong to those of us who understand what unalienable means in this context.  But it does require an ability to see and understand a universal truth as the Founders saw it.  I concede that some just don't seem to have that abiility.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.
> 
> Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.
> 
> But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is a right to bear arms, express a religious belief, speak or write what one believes, or be secure in one's own property, etc. if it can be violated?  The Constitution did not state there is a right to have these things but, in the Bill of Rights, explicitly recognized that they existed and restrained the government from violating them?  If they are violated, does that mean they do not exist?  Or just that something or somebody chose to deny another the ability to exercise them?
> 
> P.S. There is no right to be immune to consequences for one's choices.  I have no right to not be eaten by lions if I choose to walk among them.  I have no right not to die if I jump off a tall building or to not experience severe distress if I choose to consume certain substances.  Do not confuse ability with a right.  Do not confuse choices with a right.  There can be a right to choose.  A right may allow us ability.  But they are different things.
Click to expand...


If rights exist outside of man defining them then they are worthless. To my observations nature has never created anything worthless.  

The reason there is no right to be immune to consequences of ones choices is simple.  Rights have no power unless you are capable of exercising them.  If I have the right to life then I should live as long as I want to provided I stay out of harms way.  Your body breaks down regardless of what you do. You dont have a right to life.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they exist?
> 
> OR
> 
> No, they don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.
Click to expand...


Says.......?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Editing a post to change its meaning is a violation of board rules.  It is also absolute proof that you lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^ That was a sad bluff.
> You should report me then if I edited it. Go ahead because we both know it is what you said.
Click to expand...


Here is the post you claim I said that, feel free to point out where I did.



Quantum Windbag said:


> They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.



If you don't believe me feel free to click on the little button next to my name in both quotes and find out they both go to the same post.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings _can_ readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  For example, human beings _can_ reckon that a triangle is the same thing as a square at the same time, on the same plane of reference.

That statement is false.

What does that tell you about human consciousness?


----------



## M14 Shooter

dilloduck said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure you do----you can do anything you want. Some may try to stop you and some may encourage and assist you.
Click to expand...

Since you agree that, absent government, you have the right to tell people how much you like cheese - et cetera -  I'm not at all sure how you think you have any credible point remaining.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Asclepias said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom  and right are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

^^^
There's your problem.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a right to bear arms, express a religious belief, speak or write what one believes, or be secure in one's own property, etc. if it can be violated?  The Constitution did not state there is a right to have these things but, in the Bill of Rights, explicitly recognized that they existed and restrained the government from violating them?  If they are violated, does that mean they do not exist?  Or just that something or somebody chose to deny another the ability to exercise them?
> 
> P.S. There is no right to be immune to consequences for one's choices.  I have no right to not be eaten by lions if I choose to walk among them.  I have no right not to die if I jump off a tall building or to not experience severe distress if I choose to consume certain substances.  Do not confuse ability with a right.  Do not confuse choices with a right.  There can be a right to choose.  A right may allow us ability.  But they are different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If rights exist outside of man defining them then they are worthless. To my observations nature has never created anything worthless.
> 
> The reason there is no right to be immune to consequences of ones choices is simple.  Rights have no power unless you are capable of exercising them.  If I have the right to life then I should live as long as I want to provided I stay out of harms way.  Your body breaks down regardless of what you do. You dont have a right to life.
Click to expand...


Why would rights that man has not recognized or defined be worthless? 

Penicillin existed before anybody even conceived of such a thing or figured out how to utilize a mold to get it and learned how to use it.  Is it worthless if nobody uses it?  Or destroys it?  No.  It still has the same worth regardless of whether anybody chooses to ackowledge or utilize it.

Gravity existed before anybody even thought about it or figured out how to use it in previously uncommon ways or understand the far larger implications of its role in the universe.  Is it worthless if nobody thinks about it or uses it?  No.  It is simply not considered or intentionally utilized but it exists just the same.

Is life worthless because it is temporal?  Because it can be ended prematurely?  Does it  not exist if it is not valued?

Is thought, creativity, ingenuity, etc. valueless or does not exist just because somebody is prevented from having it via a stroke or injury?

To deny unalienable rights (as the Founders defined them) as a reality or declare them worthless if not embraced, allowed, or utilized is simply not reasonable.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now in response to the substance:  Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others*
> 
> 
> 
> Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better:  "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something newor should I say _old_?the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law.  The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or _nature_, if you prefer) and man:  wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.
> 
> Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase _in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper_: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universallyby all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them.  Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately  apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction.  Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man.  In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as _the dignities of man_, _the prerogatives of man_, _the entitlements of man_; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men _by_ man.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence.  From murder to involuntary servitude proper:  these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human.  The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners.  The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.
> 
> Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it?  Does it makes sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.
Click to expand...


*Quantum*, Last night I gave you something to think about in response to your cryptic, rhetorical question.

As for this unmitigated crap.  Had you been paying attention, Quantum, rather than sleeping, you might have noted that Asclepias' asked a historical question more complex than he apparently understood it to be.  There are things about the history of law that are pertinent here.  One of the major things getting in the way of folks' understanding of natural morality is historical ignorance.  Asclepias' question is rhetorical.  It's about the pertinent fact of historythe innate and, therefore, inalienable rights of manframed as one about the natural rights of man in quotation marks.  They are one and the same thing.  

Do you follow, Quantum?

The various terms that have been used throughout history regarding the innate rights of man  before Augustine's designation _natural rights_ are _the dignities of man, the prerogatives of man, and the entitlements of man_.  They have been recognized throughout known recorded history, or was that point in the above lost on you?  Or were you confused, whereas I was not, by the way Asclepia phrased the question?

Now read it again:  "What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his 'natural rights'?"

The answer to that would be as earlier as ca. 2115 BC, beginning with the Code of Ur-Nammu, with the Laws of Eshnunna and the Code of Hammurabi following on its heels.  The Code of Hammurabi expressed the Golden Rule in the negative relative to the corollary _initial force-defensive force_ as an eye for an eye, and a tooth for tooth.  Natural morality 101.  In these the innate rights of man were recognized to exist universally and were protected by the state, which prohibited murder, the various forms of oppression and theft.  However, they were not universally and consistently applied.  

Why?  

The answer to that fixes Asclepias' misapprehension of things.

Because the gods that endowed them were capricious, from the pantheon of those beyond (in fact, the priests and priestesses) to the emperor gods below.  Divinity endows, divinity revokes.  The pretext was that these various despots of paganism were the essence of nature/divinity itself.  The mere men under their sway could not transfer or take rights.  But then anyone paying attention can see that the actuality of the matterthe essence, not the illusionis that self-anointed theocrats raised themselves to something they were not and in so doing effectively declared the uninitiated to be something less than human. 

Did these despots actually transfer or take innate rights away?  Of course not.  However, their pretext demonstrates that they were very much aware of the underlying realities of natural morality.  As mere men they could not take rights.   

Mosaic Law called pagan statism out for what it actually was: theocrats in one form or another claiming the divine right of rule, albeit, as deities. 

Asclepias did not actually ask me when in recorded history man first _*referred*_ to his innate rights as natural rights.  Illusion.  Rather, the question he actually asked:  what is the earliest evidence that we have from recorded history that man _*mentions*_ his innate rights/natural rights.  His semantic ploy is irrelevant; the underlying reality remains. 

Isn't that right, Quantum?

I answered the question he actually asked.

He's insinuating that because innate rights have not been universally respected in history, they have not been universally recognized in history. 

Non Sequitur.

There's not one wasted line in my post or one wasted point of fact refuting the inherent historical fallacies and insinuations of his question.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.
> 
> Nobody has said rights cannot be violated.  Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.
> 
> But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
Click to expand...


If you are serious, explain to me how unalienable rights is an oxymoron. What makes those two words seem, to you, to have opposite or contradictory meanings. By the way, simply posting the definitions of the words is not an answer to that question because nothing in the definition of either word contradicts the other word. I can prove that quite easily by rewording the quote from the Declaration of Independence that is giving you the heeby jeebies.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,  that they are endowed by their Nature with certain moral entitlements that cannot be  taken away, or even given away by the possessor, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
​I breathlessly await your computer's utter inability to actually put anything you don't want to see in front of your eyes.​​


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings _can_ readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  For example, human beings _can_ reckon that a triangle is the same thing as a square at the same time, on the same plane of reference.
> 
> That statement is false.
> 
> What does that tell you about human consciousness?
Click to expand...


The fact that a 2 people can *reckon *about 2 diametrically opposing ideas is not an a diametrically opposing idea. The absolute is that you have to be able to *reckon* in order to have a diametrically opposing idea in the first place.


----------



## Asclepias

M14 Shooter said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom  and right are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> There's your problem.
Click to expand...


Where is my problem?  Is it that I dont see the dictionary you used to define freedom and rights?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. *By definition* an unalienable right *cannot be separated or taken away*. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.
Click to expand...


Once you explain to me how my right to think whatever I want is in any way dependent on anything outside the fact that I have free will you can argue that we should dump the word unalienable. Until then you are stuck with the fact that it is unalienable and I have no more need to defend it than I need to defend the fact that the universe is billions of years old. Some things just are, even if they upset the worldview of close minded idiots.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.



Understanding that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute, more at grasping why that's so and handling that fact, is understanding the whole of natural morality at a glance, especially after one has handled it from top to bottom for decades. 

The whole package is self-evident.  Axiomatic.  The rest is detail.  

There's not a question you can ask that I can't answer about this matter.  There's not a question I've never considered that you can ask about it that this fact of reality won't divulge.

I don't have to know all the answers at any given moment, because I have the key that unlocks the answer to any question you might ask.

The only thing you could possibly be talking about is my earlier logical error of wrongful inference, which is of no consequence.  In fact, it's clarification actually drives the pertinent point home.

I don't know all the  answers or can't decipher them?

Why would that be?

Prove it.

What's your question?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
Click to expand...


Excuse me? As usual, you are looking at this backwards. Their value is why we protect them. We do the same thing with all our valuables, which is why you don't leave your computer outside whenever you are not using it. The more value we place on something, the harder we fight to keep it. 

As for what makes them different from legal rights, our government cannot actually give us natural rights. This is a point I have made consistently, and you continue to argue that the fact that the government is forbidden from interfering with them somehow proves they only exist because government exists. 

The governmnet is also prohibited from dropping a nuclear bomb in the Grand Canyon. Feel free to explain how the fact that we prohibit the government from blowing up the Grand Canyon proves it only exists because the government exists.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a right to bear arms, express a religious belief, speak or write what one believes, or be secure in one's own property, etc. if it can be violated?  The Constitution did not state there is a right to have these things but, in the Bill of Rights, explicitly recognized that they existed and restrained the government from violating them?  If they are violated, does that mean they do not exist?  Or just that something or somebody chose to deny another the ability to exercise them?
> 
> P.S. There is no right to be immune to consequences for one's choices.  I have no right to not be eaten by lions if I choose to walk among them.  I have no right not to die if I jump off a tall building or to not experience severe distress if I choose to consume certain substances.  Do not confuse ability with a right.  Do not confuse choices with a right.  There can be a right to choose.  A right may allow us ability.  But they are different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rights exist outside of man defining them then they are worthless. To my observations nature has never created anything worthless.
> 
> The reason there is no right to be immune to consequences of ones choices is simple.  Rights have no power unless you are capable of exercising them.  If I have the right to life then I should live as long as I want to provided I stay out of harms way.  Your body breaks down regardless of what you do. You dont have a right to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why would rights that man has not recognized or defined be worthless?*
> 
> Penicillin existed before anybody even conceived of such a thing or figured out how to utilize a mold to get it and learned how to use it.  Is it worthless if nobody uses it?  Or destroys it?  No.  It still has the same worth regardless of whether anybody chooses to ackowledge or utilize it.
> 
> Gravity existed before anybody even thought about it or figured out how to use it in previously uncommon ways or understand the far larger implications of its role in the universe.  Is it worthless if nobody thinks about it or uses it?  No.  It is simply not considered or intentionally utilized but it exists just the same.
> 
> Is life worthless because it is temporal?  Because it can be ended prematurely?  Does it  not exist if it is not valued?
> 
> Is thought, creativity, ingenuity, etc. valueless or does not exist just because somebody is prevented from having it via a stroke or injury?
> 
> To deny unalienable rights (as the Founders defined them) as a reality or declare them worthless if not embraced, allowed, or utilized is simply not reasonable.
Click to expand...


Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them.  You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.

Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.

We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man.  The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.

Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.

Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. *By definition* an unalienable right *cannot be separated or taken away*. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you concede that they can't be taken or transferred.  So now separated is you new word.  How can one be separated from one's rights?
> 
> Are you making a theological argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look up the word in any common dictionary---there are several synonyms given to define the word. Separated is not MY word----it's simply another word used to describe what "unalienable" means. It's a great word and I understand people feel it's important because it's in the Constitution but it means what it means.
> It  is something that cannot be taken away, transferred by or separated from the owner.
Click to expand...


Once again, feel free to show me a single example of any government ever actually separating anyone from their natural right to, for example, pursue happiness. Keep in mind that killing someone is not actually separating them from their right, it is simply eliminating them from the discussion, which is why so many government love to use death as a way to end an argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of knowing that the imperatives of natural morality are self-evident is knowing that the imperatives of human consciousness are absolute.  You've just conceded that they are absolute.
> 
> Do you understand what I'm getting at?
> 
> If not, then let me ask you this:  What would constitute proof for you?
> 
> Look, in the above you asked me a specific question, but I don't think you realize that the question you asked about "natural rights" was actually more complex than the one you thought you had asked.
> 
> If you won't hear the pertinent history that you might see the reoccurring historical themes of natural morality. . . .
> 
> In any event, I have two to three more posts of medium length, a bone to pick with Quantum and another that clearly demonstrates their existence.  But if you won't ask about or discuss points then. . . .
> 
> The matter is simple enough; only relativists make it more complex than it need be.
> 
> Absolutism is about the concrete, not the abstract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain what you mean by absolute. I hope I have the specific meaning in that you mean a universal truth. I dont see where I conceded that anything was absolute about the human consciousness except mans capacity to create things out of mid air.  The fact that man does that is self evident but that does not make the creations themselves self evident. The 3rd mind is a concept not a fact. Me using it does not mean I would argue its existence with anyone. Does that make sense to you?
> 
> Short of you supplying me proof another conscious entity exists that gave us these rights I dont see how you can prove it.  Do you?
> 
> Its not that I wont hear the pertinent history. Ive heard it before. I just dont think it applies. In the end it is a concept humans made up.  Labeling the rights as inalienable or natural simply attempts to put them out of reach in the minds of the people. It is a tool of social control.  i define you some vague rights via the air and then say I am protecting them for you from "those bad people".  I just garnered your support and insured your submission to me because i am protecting you.
> 
> Even absolutism depends on the abstract. You still have to convince the people to accept a concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said----there seems to be an attempt here to make a distinction between behaviors. Some are labeled as "natural" as to squelch any attempt debate their legitimacy or importance. Is there even such a thing a right that isn't natural ?
Click to expand...


Why do you keep bringing up behavior? Behavior is what you do, and it is not a right.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings _can_ readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  For example, human beings _can_ reckon that a triangle is the same thing as a square at the same time, on the same plane of reference.
> 
> That statement is false.
> 
> What does that tell you about human consciousness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that a 2 people can *reckon *about 2 diametrically opposing ideas is not an a diametrically opposing idea. The absolute is that you have to be able to *reckon* in order to have a diametrically opposing idea in the first place.
Click to expand...


Human beings cannot make diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  

The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness _are_ absolute.  They also are inherently universal.

How does one distinguish the difference between a square and a triangle.

Simple.

They're not the same thing.
____________________________________

The lesson here is slightly more complex.

_*2 + 2 = 4*_.

*2 + 2 = 5*.

Which is true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I misjudged you.  I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all.  I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that.  IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong.  Maybe we can give that topic a go as well.  if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for.  I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints.  I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this.  You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.
> 
> The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense.  It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.
> 
> It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.
> 
> I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity.   But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.
> 
> But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:
> 
> *THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.*
> 
> *THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order for me to believe that a dichotomy exists we need to change the wording.  You simply cannot have an "inalienable right"  that can be taken away.  Its not logical unless you pretend inalienable doesn't mean what it actually means. Same with natural right. All of them are man made rights.
Click to expand...


Yet you have failed to present a single example of anyone ever taking away a right. You keep arguing that the fact that people die is proof that they do not have a right to life without actually offering any evidence to back up your conclusion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they simply cease to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.
> 
> However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.
Click to expand...


You keep arguing that way even though you admitted that some man made concepts describe actual real world things, interesting.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rights exist outside of man defining them then they are worthless. To my observations nature has never created anything worthless.
> 
> The reason there is no right to be immune to consequences of ones choices is simple.  Rights have no power unless you are capable of exercising them.  If I have the right to life then I should live as long as I want to provided I stay out of harms way.  Your body breaks down regardless of what you do. You dont have a right to life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why would rights that man has not recognized or defined be worthless?*
> 
> Penicillin existed before anybody even conceived of such a thing or figured out how to utilize a mold to get it and learned how to use it.  Is it worthless if nobody uses it?  Or destroys it?  No.  It still has the same worth regardless of whether anybody chooses to ackowledge or utilize it.
> 
> Gravity existed before anybody even thought about it or figured out how to use it in previously uncommon ways or understand the far larger implications of its role in the universe.  Is it worthless if nobody thinks about it or uses it?  No.  It is simply not considered or intentionally utilized but it exists just the same.
> 
> Is life worthless because it is temporal?  Because it can be ended prematurely?  Does it  not exist if it is not valued?
> 
> Is thought, creativity, ingenuity, etc. valueless or does not exist just because somebody is prevented from having it via a stroke or injury?
> 
> To deny unalienable rights (as the Founders defined them) as a reality or declare them worthless if not embraced, allowed, or utilized is simply not reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them.  You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.
> 
> Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.
> 
> We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man.  The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.
> 
> Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.
> 
> Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I believe things have value whether or not somebody recognizes the value.

You obviously don't believe that.

Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.

So further discussion is pointless, yes?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings _can_ readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  For example, human beings _can_ reckon that a triangle is the same thing as a square at the same time, on the same plane of reference.
> 
> That statement is false.
> 
> What does that tell you about human consciousness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that a 2 people can *reckon *about 2 diametrically opposing ideas is not an a diametrically opposing idea. The absolute is that you have to be able to *reckon* in order to have a diametrically opposing idea in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Human beings cannot make diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. *
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness _are_ absolute.  They also are inherently universal.
> 
> How does one distinguish the difference between a square and a triangle.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> They're not the same thing.
> ____________________________________
> 
> The lesson here is slightly more complex.
> 
> _*2 + 2 = 4*_.
> 
> *2 + 2 = 5*.
> 
> Which is true.
Click to expand...



I think I said the bolded before. IMO only one idea can be true or both are wrong.  As far as the math problem goes what is the key?  Are we doing this base 10?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.
> 
> However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So man is not part of nature?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the definition of natural which man defined.
Click to expand...


You mean not according to the definition of natural which you picked solely because it furthered your goals. On the other hand, if you actually read the full definition you will see that it is entirely possible for something man made to be natural.

1*:*  based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <_natural_ justice> 

2 _a_ *:*  being in accordance with or determined by nature 
_b_ *:*  having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature 

3_ a _ _(1)_ *:*  begotten as distinguished from adopted; _also_ *:* legitimate _(2)_ *:*  being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <_natural_ parents>   
_b_ *:* illegitimate <a _natural_ child> 

4*:*  having an essential relation with someone or something *:*  following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a _natural_ deduction from the evidence> 

5*:*  implanted or being as if implanted by nature *:*  seemingly inborn <a _natural_ talent for art> 

6*:*  of or relating to nature as an object of study and research 

7*:*  having a specified character by nature <a _natural_ athlete> 

8_ a_ *:*  occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature *:*  not marvelous or supernatural <_natural_ causes>   
_b_ *:*  formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <_natural_ religion> <_natural_ rights>   
_c_ *:*  having a normal or usual character <events followed their _natural_ course> 

9*:*  possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble  brother  ever most kind and _natural_   Shakespeare> 

10_ a_ *:*  growing without human care; _also_ *:*  not cultivated <_natural_ prairie unbroken by the plow>   
_b_ *:*  existing in or produced by nature *:*  not artificial <_natural_ turf> <_natural_ curiosities>   
_c_ *:*  relating to or being natural food 

11_ a_ *:*  being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment *:* unregenerate <_natural_ man>   
_b_ *:*  living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society 

12_ a_ *:*  having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a _natural_ person>   
_b_ *:*  of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <_natural_ laws describe phenomena of the physical universe> 

13_ a_ *:*  closely resembling an original *:*  true to nature   
_b_ *:*  marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint   
_c_ *:*  having a form or appearance found in nature 

14_ a_ *:*  having neither flats nor sharps <the _natural_ scale of C major>   
_b_ *:*  being neither sharp nor flat   
_c_ *:*  having the pitch modified by the natural sign 

15*:*  of an off-white or beige color 
 *nat·u·ral·ness* _noun_ 




 See natural defined for English-language learners »

See natural defined for kids »

*Examples of NATURAL*



furniture made of _natural_ materials
The river forms a _natural_ boundary between the two countries.
*natural foods* like whole grain bread and fresh vegetables
Gray hair is one of the _natural_ consequences of getting older.
a _natural_ increase in the population
the _natural_ course of the disease
It's perfectly _natural_ to feel nervous before a test.


*
*
​


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why would rights that man has not recognized or defined be worthless?*
> 
> Penicillin existed before anybody even conceived of such a thing or figured out how to utilize a mold to get it and learned how to use it.  Is it worthless if nobody uses it?  Or destroys it?  No.  It still has the same worth regardless of whether anybody chooses to ackowledge or utilize it.
> 
> Gravity existed before anybody even thought about it or figured out how to use it in previously uncommon ways or understand the far larger implications of its role in the universe.  Is it worthless if nobody thinks about it or uses it?  No.  It is simply not considered or intentionally utilized but it exists just the same.
> 
> Is life worthless because it is temporal?  Because it can be ended prematurely?  Does it  not exist if it is not valued?
> 
> Is thought, creativity, ingenuity, etc. valueless or does not exist just because somebody is prevented from having it via a stroke or injury?
> 
> To deny unalienable rights (as the Founders defined them) as a reality or declare them worthless if not embraced, allowed, or utilized is simply not reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them.  You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.
> 
> Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.
> 
> We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man.  The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.
> 
> Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.
> 
> Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I believe things have value whether or not somebody recognizes the value.
> 
> You obviously don't believe that.
> 
> Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.
> 
> So further discussion is pointless, yes?
Click to expand...


Thats a noble belief and in that frame of reference all things indeed have value for you.  However since I believe value depends on usefulness and worth I am curious on how something holds value for you that you cannot use?  For example how much value do you place on water in a grocery store full of water as opposed to half a bottle of water while lost in a desert?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Quantum*, Last night I gave you something to think about in response to your cryptic, rhetorical question.
> 
> As for this unmitigated crap.  Had you been paying attention, Quantum, rather than sleeping, you might have noted that Asclepias' asked a historical question more complex than he apparently understood it to be.  There are things about the history of law that are pertinent here.  One of the major things getting in the way of folks' understanding of natural morality is historical ignorance.  Asclepias' question is rhetorical.  It's about the pertinent fact of history&#8212;the innate and, therefore, inalienable rights of man&#8212;framed as one about the natural rights of man in quotation marks.  They are one and the same thing.
> 
> Do you follow, Quantum?
> 
> The various terms that have been used throughout history regarding the innate rights of man  before Augustine's designation _natural rights_ are _the dignities of man, the prerogatives of man, and the entitlements of man_.  They have been recognized throughout known recorded history, or was that point in the above lost on you?  Or were you confused, whereas I was not, by the way Asclepia phrased the question?
> 
> Now read it again:  "What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his 'natural rights'?"
> 
> The answer to that would be as earlier as ca. 2115 BC, beginning with the Code of Ur-Nammu, with the Laws of Eshnunna and the Code of Hammurabi following on its heels.  The Code of Hammurabi expressed the Golden Rule in the negative relative to the corollary _initial force-defensive force_ as an eye for an eye, and a tooth for tooth.  Natural morality 101.  In these the innate rights of man were recognized to exist universally and were protected by the state, which prohibited murder, the various forms of oppression and theft.  However, they were not universally and consistently applied.
> 
> Why?
> 
> The answer to that fixes Asclepias' misapprehension of things.
> 
> Because the gods that endowed them were capricious, from the pantheon of those beyond (in fact, the priests and priestesses) to the emperor gods below.  Divinity endows, divinity revokes.  The pretext was that these various despots of paganism were the essence of nature/divinity itself.  The mere men under their sway could not transfer or take rights.  But then anyone paying attention can see that the actuality of the matter&#8212;the essence, not the illusion&#8212;is that self-anointed theocrats raised themselves to something they were not and in so doing effectively declared the uninitiated to be something less than human.
> 
> Did these despots actually transfer or take innate rights away?  Of course not.  However, their pretext demonstrates that they were very much aware of the underlying realities of natural morality.  As mere men they could not take rights.
> 
> Mosaic Law called pagan statism out for what it actually was: theocrats in one form or another claiming the divine right of rule, albeit, as deities.
> 
> Asclepias did not actually ask me when in recorded history man first _*referred*_ to his innate rights as natural rights.  Illusion.  Rather, the question he actually asked:  what is the earliest evidence that we have from recorded history that man _*mentions*_ his innate rights/natural rights.  His semantic ploy is irrelevant; the underlying reality remains.
> 
> Isn't that right, Quantum?
> 
> I answered the question he actually asked.
> 
> He's insinuating that because innate rights have not been universally respected in history, they have not been universally recognized in history.
> 
> Non Sequitur.
> 
> There's not one wasted line in my post or one wasted point of fact refuting the inherent historical fallacies and insinuations of his question.
Click to expand...


Which is why I responded to his post the way I did. If he is unwilling to even read the answers to questions he asks he is never going to learn. It is also why I refuse to respond to his challenges to answer questions I have already answered.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If rights exist outside of man defining them then they are worthless. To my observations nature has never created anything worthless.
> 
> The reason there is no right to be immune to consequences of ones choices is simple.  Rights have no power unless you are capable of exercising them.  If I have the right to life then I should live as long as I want to provided I stay out of harms way.  Your body breaks down regardless of what you do. You dont have a right to life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why would rights that man has not recognized or defined be worthless?*
> 
> Penicillin existed before anybody even conceived of such a thing or figured out how to utilize a mold to get it and learned how to use it.  Is it worthless if nobody uses it?  Or destroys it?  No.  It still has the same worth regardless of whether anybody chooses to ackowledge or utilize it.
> 
> Gravity existed before anybody even thought about it or figured out how to use it in previously uncommon ways or understand the far larger implications of its role in the universe.  Is it worthless if nobody thinks about it or uses it?  No.  It is simply not considered or intentionally utilized but it exists just the same.
> 
> Is life worthless because it is temporal?  Because it can be ended prematurely?  Does it  not exist if it is not valued?
> 
> Is thought, creativity, ingenuity, etc. valueless or does not exist just because somebody is prevented from having it via a stroke or injury?
> 
> To deny unalienable rights (as the Founders defined them) as a reality or declare them worthless if not embraced, allowed, or utilized is simply not reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them.  You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.
Click to expand...


Then it is a good thing, for you., that other people have thought about these things and handed you a definition. The one part I don't understand is why, if your assertion that rights have no value unless you can define them, people have always fought for freedom even when they were not handed a definition of what it is. Or even why animals, who are not burdened with man made concepts like rights, are willing to chew of their own leg to get free of a trap.

Can you explain that?



Asclepias said:


> Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.



Why is its value to mankind the only way to assign value? Isn't that a little bit egotistic of you to insist that the only way something has value is if you can see it?



Asclepias said:


> We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man.  The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.



That doesn't even make sense. Newton did not discovery gravity, he defined it. That is widely acknowledged and is absolute proof, according to you, that gravity had no value before Newton. The minor fact that the Romans, for on, actually used gravity, and obtained a value from it, is irrelevant, because, without a definition, it has no value.



Asclepias said:


> Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.



Have you considered opening your eyes?



Asclepias said:


> Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?



The fact that you find them worthless is not proof they are worthless, it just proves you don't value your rights.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Jefferson Chronicles*


Jefferson is not the historical origin of the sociopolitical philosophy in the Declaration of Independence, which someone recently claimed again while blathering about abstract rights.  Jefferson merely reiterated old themes that by his time had become crystal clear in Europe due the second breakout of biblical Christianity as a result of the Reformation, which made the Enlightenment possible.  Nevertheless, Jefferson believed them and owned them in his own right.  When he declared that "We hold these truths to be self-evident," he was talking about the very things I've propounded in the above.  He meant every word of it, _*literally*_, in every sense of that word.  

Many of you don't know your history.  Jefferson didn't live in this post-modern world of baby talk, moral and intellectual relativism, the silly yet oppressive trappings of multiculturalism and political correctness.  He knew better!

The typical relativist fancies himself to be the epitome of open-mindedness, the regnant bard of enlightenment, the grand purveyor of tolerance and nuance.  The king of cool.  What he really is:  a naïve yet dangerous child throwing a tantrum, his fingers jammed to the knuckle in his ears, singing, "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!"  

The relativist is the epitome of closed-minded, intellectual bigotry.  He never gets past first principles, let alone grasps them that he might begin to grapple with the truly staggering complexities and nuances of the reality in which he lives.  Relativism is sheer dogma, a collection of slogans and clichés.

How could it be anything else?  There's no there there to hang onto.

We got folks on this board who are either trolling or actually believe that because synthetic compounds are man-made they are not natural substances! 

Talk about **Yawn**.  

He's the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal teetering on the very edge of the abyss of sociopathy.

*There are no absolutes, but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false?*

"They hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Saint Paul).  

The above is precisely what Paul was talking about.  What?  You thought his talk of folks holding the truth and all that moral mumbo jumbo about unrighteousness was something that was not readily apparent to all, just a secrete known only by God, albeit, whispered into Paul's ear?

The distinction of the relativist about some inscrutable potentiality is the dogma that makes no difference. 

The Founders and their fellow commoners were steeped in the rational, empirical and moral teachings of Judeo-Christianity and in the sociopolitical themes and anthems of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism with John Locke as the universally celebrated Father of the same, who extrapolated his rendition of natural morality, not from any relativistic or collectivistic systems of religious thought, but from that of the Bible, the ontological justification for his theory.  

The dichotimic corollaries of the natural rights of man, _light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions_, _initial force-defensive force_; the essence of the inherently universal and absolute imperatives of human consciousness (_Imago Dei_) as propounded by the Bible, the self-evident truths of the reality with which we must contend; the depredations of monarchy and theocracy, the inalienable right of revolt and its corollary, the right to keep and bear arms; separation of church and state; the separation of governmental power; no taxation without representation; freedom of religion! freedom of speech! freedom of assembly!; the divine rights of individual liberty and free-association, namely, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:  all of these things had been in the hearts and minds of prerevolutionary Americans for decades before Jefferson put pen to paper and wrote the DOI, indeed, before he was even born. 

Jefferson was not the origin of any of these things.  He was not trying to convince anyone to embrace these things.  Americans already believed these things and knew them to be true.  He was only trying to convince his reluctant countrymen to _act_ on these things.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them.  You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.
> 
> Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.
> 
> We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man.  The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.
> 
> Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.
> 
> Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I believe things have value whether or not somebody recognizes the value.
> 
> You obviously don't believe that.
> 
> Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.
> 
> So further discussion is pointless, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats a noble belief and in that frame of reference all things indeed have value for you.  However since I believe value depends on usefulness and worth I am curious on how something holds value for you that you cannot use?  For example how much value do you place on water in a grocery store full of water as opposed to half a bottle of water while lost in a desert?
Click to expand...


The availability or urgency of something can increase its price or perception of worth, but not its value.  Water in some form is a necessity of life for human existence and humans will suffer without enough of it regardless of where they are or their circumstances when they are deprived of it.  It has equal value whether the body needs it in the desert or whether the body needs it in a grocery store.  A body can die in either place if deprived of water for a sufficiently length of time.   If you consume water that your body needs with absolutely no consciousness of relieving thirst or consciousness of the benefits to the body, it will have the same value nevertheless.  And that value is not diminished one bit if somebody deprives you of water.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that a 2 people can *reckon *about 2 diametrically opposing ideas is not an a diametrically opposing idea. The absolute is that you have to be able to *reckon* in order to have a diametrically opposing idea in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Human beings cannot make diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. *
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness _are_ absolute.  They also are inherently universal.
> 
> How does one distinguish the difference between a square and a triangle.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> They're not the same thing.
> ____________________________________
> 
> The lesson here is slightly more complex.
> 
> _*2 + 2 = 4*_.
> 
> *2 + 2 = 5*.
> 
> Which is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said the bolded before. IMO only one idea can be true or both are wrong.  As far as the math problem goes what is the key?  Are we doing this base 10?
Click to expand...


Tedious, isn't it?

Never mind!  

4!  

But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4?  Where!  

Human consciousness!

How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?

We don't!  Not in any immediate sense.

But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.

The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.

So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.

What does that tell you about innate rights?

Where do they reside?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this.  You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.
> 
> The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense.  It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.
> 
> It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.
> 
> I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity.   But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.
> 
> But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:
> 
> *THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.*
> 
> *THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order for me to believe that a dichotomy exists we need to change the wording.  You simply cannot have an "inalienable right"  that can be taken away.  Its not logical unless you pretend inalienable doesn't mean what it actually means. Same with natural right. All of them are man made rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you have failed to present a single example of anyone ever taking away a right. You keep arguing that the fact that people die is proof that they do not have a right to life without actually offering any evidence to back up your conclusion.
Click to expand...


People are put in jail.


----------



## dilloduck

M14 Shooter said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your admission.
> This, of course, means you haven't a leg to stand on.
> 
> 
> 
> Editing my post and then attempting to claim some victory ?  That's a pretty cheap tactic don't you think ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't change the fact you do not have a leg to stand on.
> Destruction necessitates prior existence.  No way around it.
Click to expand...


The post you so conveniently edited to make you point spoke of the DEFINITION being destroyed.  Bad form.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Dear Relativist:

More on that Engraving on Man's Heart:  or what possible difference could it make to us?  Free Will.  Your choice.  I opt for the practical, but that's just me.* 

"What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really? 

The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule:  treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.  The rest is history.  As I pointed out in the above:  it's not that important that this is written on stones or papyrus because it's already written on man's heart; that is to say, it's embedded in his nature, the nature of a sentient being.

"What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?  

The essence of its apprehension:  the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision that are inherently universal and absolute.

"What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?

The essence of its material ground:  the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle:  not as _a whole_ as the materialist would have it, but as _the sum_.  The difference between the two is the difference between that which is _metaphysical_ and that which is _quantifiable_, respectively.  

Perhaps you think these things are not actual beyond the constraints of human consciousness.  A hardwired illusion!  Okay.  But the illusion is still the same self-evident realty for us.  Make no mistake about it, you are bound by the mutual obligations of morality and their sociopolitical ramifications as summarized in the Golden Rule whether you merely react to their impact on your life at the instinctual level of self-interest and self-preservation, or perceive them at the conscious level of a morally enlightened human being.

Even if your level of apprehension is the former due to the fact that you are a congenital sociopath or merely a relativist with your ego backed up against the wall in the face of the incontrovertible, a more common human failing:  you would not have me *(1)* to kill you, *(2)* to oppress you or *(3)* to steal from you.  I know this because I would not have you do anyone of these *three* things to me.  Apprehension of the ramifications at the rational level of being.  Also, I know this because you have incessantly complained about these same *three* things in your supposed falsifications of the actual existence of the *three*, correlative categories of natural rights:  *(1)* the right to life, *(2)* the right to liberty and *(3)* the right of private property.  Apprehension of the actualization at the empirical level of being.

"What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?

You guys are hung up on the apparent abstraction of the term _right_, as opposed to the term _ability_ and the freedoms thereof.  Even when you're not confounding its usage relative to the distinction between these *three* categories of innate rights and the mere political rights, civil rights or civil protections afforded by government: you fail to make the connection.  Ironically, you get the essence of the term, but you never get the sense in which this abstraction obtains given that the legal code that attests to the existence of these *three* categories of rights is embedded in human nature, the nature of a sentient being!

You're looking for historical artifacts or declarations as if one need prove to oneself what one already knows to be true.  

"What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?

It's the incorruptible _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature, which persists as your guide toward the way of intellectual and moral rectitude, or as your  judge despite the fallen and rebellious aspect of human nature.  This along with the empirical repercussions in nature of disregarding its recommendations is God's system of checks and balances against your violation of _His_ inalienable rights and authority, and the dignity of your fellow human beings.

Hence, don't tell me you don't see that which is universally recognized by all as I have just proven, indeed, as you and your cohorts have unwittingly and repeatedly proven every time you think to challenge their existence on the grounds of their alleged neutralization via one of the *three* correlative means:  murder, oppression or theft, none of which, quite obviously, ever lays so much as a glove on the ultimate essence of these rights!

*crickets chirping*

"What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?

Yet, as any astute observer may see, one need not appeal to God's existence to demonstrate the actuality of natural morality's imperatives.  It's not rationally possible to refute their existence without proving their existence.  Hence, they are axiomatically true for all intents and purposes.  They are self-evident.  

What possible difference would it make to us if beyond the absolute constraints of human consciousness reality is ultimately the stuff of utter chaos.  We do not live our lives or think our lives as if two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  Indeed, how could we possibly know if the ultimate facts of realty _were_ the stuff of chaos?  

The distinctions of relativism are the dogma that make no difference.  *Yawn*


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Dear Relativist:
> 
> More on that Engraving on Man's Heart:  or what possible difference could it make to us?  Free Will.  Your choice.  I opt for the practical, but that's just me.*
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule:  treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.  The rest is history.  As I pointed out in the above:  it's not that important that this is written on stones or papyrus because it's already written on man's heart; that is to say, it's embedded in his nature, the nature of a sentient being.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The essence of its apprehension:  the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision that are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The essence of its material ground:  the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle:  not as _a whole_ as the materialist would have it, but as _the sum_.  The difference between the two is the difference between that which is _metaphysical_ and that which is _quantifiable_, respectively.
> 
> Perhaps you think these things are not actual beyond the constraints of human consciousness.  A hardwired illusion!  Okay.  But the illusion is still the same self-evident realty for us.  Make no mistake about it, you are bound by the mutual obligations of morality and their sociopolitical ramifications as summarized in the Golden Rule whether you merely react to their impact on your life at the instinctual level of self-interest and self-preservation, or perceive them at the conscious level of a morally enlightened human being.
> 
> Even if your level of apprehension is the former due to the fact that you are a congenital sociopath or merely a relativist with your ego backed up against the wall in the face of the incontrovertible, a more common human failing:  you would not have me *(1)* to kill you, *(2)* to oppress you or *(3)* to steal from you.  I know this because I would not have you do anyone of these *three* things to me.  Apprehension of the ramifications at the rational level of being.  Also, I know this because you have incessantly complained about these same *three* things in your supposed falsifications of the actual existence of the *three*, correlative categories of natural rights:  *(1)* the right to life, *(2)* the right to liberty and *(3)* the right of private property.  Apprehension of the actualization at the empirical level of being.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> You guys are hung up on the apparent abstraction of the term _right_, as opposed to the term _ability_ and the freedoms thereof.  Even when you're not confounding its usage relative to the distinction between these *three* categories of innate rights and the mere political rights, civil rights or civil protections afforded by government: you fail to make the connection.  Ironically, you get the essence of the term, but you never get the sense in which this abstraction obtains given that the legal code that attests to the existence of these *three* categories of rights is embedded in human nature, the nature of a sentient being!
> 
> You're looking for historical artifacts or declarations as if one need prove to oneself what one already knows to be true.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> It's the incorruptible _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature, which persists as your guide toward the way of intellectual and moral rectitude, or as your  judge despite the fallen and rebellious aspect of human nature.  This along with the empirical repercussions in nature of disregarding its recommendations is God's system of checks and balances against your violation of _His_ inalienable rights and authority, and the dignity of your fellow human beings.
> 
> Hence, don't tell me you don't see that which is universally recognized by all as I have just proven, indeed, as you and your cohorts have unwittingly and repeatedly proven every time you think to challenge their existence on the grounds of their alleged neutralization via one of the *three* correlative means:  murder, oppression or theft, none of which, quite obviously, ever lays so much as a glove on the ultimate essence of these rights!
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Yet, as any astute observer may see, one need not appeal to God's existence to demonstrate the actuality of natural morality's imperatives.  It's not rationally possible to refute their existence without proving their existence.  Hence, they are axiomatically true for all intents and purposes.  They are self-evident.
> 
> What possible difference would it make to us if beyond the absolute constraints of human consciousness reality is ultimately the stuff of utter chaos.  We do not live our lives or think our lives as if two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  Indeed, how could we possibly know if the ultimate facts of realty _were_ the stuff of chaos?
> 
> The distinctions of relativism are the dogma that make no difference.  *Yawn*



Gibberish and sophistry.



> The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule:  treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.



Link me to something that verifies that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dear Relativist:
> 
> More on that Engraving on Man's Heart:  or what possible difference could it make to us?  Free Will.  Your choice.  I opt for the practical, but that's just me.*
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule:  treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.  The rest is history.  As I pointed out in the above:  it's not that important that this is written on stones or papyrus because it's already written on man's heart; that is to say, it's embedded in his nature, the nature of a sentient being.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The essence of its apprehension:  the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision that are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The essence of its material ground:  the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle:  not as _a whole_ as the materialist would have it, but as _the sum_.  The difference between the two is the difference between that which is _metaphysical_ and that which is _quantifiable_, respectively.
> 
> Perhaps you think these things are not actual beyond the constraints of human consciousness.  A hardwired illusion!  Okay.  But the illusion is still the same self-evident realty for us.  Make no mistake about it, you are bound by the mutual obligations of morality and their sociopolitical ramifications as summarized in the Golden Rule whether you merely react to their impact on your life at the instinctual level of self-interest and self-preservation, or perceive them at the conscious level of a morally enlightened human being.
> 
> Even if your level of apprehension is the former due to the fact that you are a congenital sociopath or merely a relativist with your ego backed up against the wall in the face of the incontrovertible, a more common human failing:  you would not have me *(1)* to kill you, *(2)* to oppress you or *(3)* to steal from you.  I know this because I would not have you do anyone of these *three* things to me.  Apprehension of the ramifications at the rational level of being.  Also, I know this because you have incessantly complained about these same *three* things in your supposed falsifications of the actual existence of the *three*, correlative categories of natural rights:  *(1)* the right to life, *(2)* the right to liberty and *(3)* the right of private property.  Apprehension of the actualization at the empirical level of being.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> You guys are hung up on the apparent abstraction of the term _right_, as opposed to the term _ability_ and the freedoms thereof.  Even when you're not confounding its usage relative to the distinction between these *three* categories of innate rights and the mere political rights, civil rights or civil protections afforded by government: you fail to make the connection.  Ironically, you get the essence of the term, but you never get the sense in which this abstraction obtains given that the legal code that attests to the existence of these *three* categories of rights is embedded in human nature, the nature of a sentient being!
> 
> You're looking for historical artifacts or declarations as if one need prove to oneself what one already knows to be true.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> It's the incorruptible _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature, which persists as your guide toward the way of intellectual and moral rectitude, or as your  judge despite the fallen and rebellious aspect of human nature.  This along with the empirical repercussions in nature of disregarding its recommendations is God's system of checks and balances against your violation of _His_ inalienable rights and authority, and the dignity of your fellow human beings.
> 
> Hence, don't tell me you don't see that which is universally recognized by all as I have just proven, indeed, as you and your cohorts have unwittingly and repeatedly proven every time you think to challenge their existence on the grounds of their alleged neutralization via one of the *three* correlative means:  murder, oppression or theft, none of which, quite obviously, ever lays so much as a glove on the ultimate essence of these rights!
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Yet, as any astute observer may see, one need not appeal to God's existence to demonstrate the actuality of natural morality's imperatives.  It's not rationally possible to refute their existence without proving their existence.  Hence, they are axiomatically true for all intents and purposes.  They are self-evident.
> 
> What possible difference would it make to us if beyond the absolute constraints of human consciousness reality is ultimately the stuff of utter chaos.  We do not live our lives or think our lives as if two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  Indeed, how could we possibly know if the ultimate facts of realty _were_ the stuff of chaos?
> 
> The distinctions of relativism are the dogma that make no difference.  *Yawn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gibberish and sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule:  treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link me to something that verifies that.
Click to expand...


Sociopath.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dear Relativist:
> 
> More on that Engraving on Man's Heart:  or what possible difference could it make to us?  Free Will.  Your choice.  I opt for the practical, but that's just me.*
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule:  treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.  The rest is history.  As I pointed out in the above:  it's not that important that this is written on stones or papyrus because it's already written on man's heart; that is to say, it's embedded in his nature, the nature of a sentient being.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The essence of its apprehension:  the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision that are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> The essence of its material ground:  the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle:  not as _a whole_ as the materialist would have it, but as _the sum_.  The difference between the two is the difference between that which is _metaphysical_ and that which is _quantifiable_, respectively.
> 
> Perhaps you think these things are not actual beyond the constraints of human consciousness.  A hardwired illusion!  Okay.  But the illusion is still the same self-evident realty for us.  Make no mistake about it, you are bound by the mutual obligations of morality and their sociopolitical ramifications as summarized in the Golden Rule whether you merely react to their impact on your life at the instinctual level of self-interest and self-preservation, or perceive them at the conscious level of a morally enlightened human being.
> 
> Even if your level of apprehension is the former due to the fact that you are a congenital sociopath or merely a relativist with your ego backed up against the wall in the face of the incontrovertible, a more common human failing:  you would not have me *(1)* to kill you, *(2)* to oppress you or *(3)* to steal from you.  I know this because I would not have you do anyone of these *three* things to me.  Apprehension of the ramifications at the rational level of being.  Also, I know this because you have incessantly complained about these same *three* things in your supposed falsifications of the actual existence of the *three*, correlative categories of natural rights:  *(1)* the right to life, *(2)* the right to liberty and *(3)* the right of private property.  Apprehension of the actualization at the empirical level of being.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> You guys are hung up on the apparent abstraction of the term _right_, as opposed to the term _ability_ and the freedoms thereof.  Even when you're not confounding its usage relative to the distinction between these *three* categories of innate rights and the mere political rights, civil rights or civil protections afforded by government: you fail to make the connection.  Ironically, you get the essence of the term, but you never get the sense in which this abstraction obtains given that the legal code that attests to the existence of these *three* categories of rights is embedded in human nature, the nature of a sentient being!
> 
> You're looking for historical artifacts or declarations as if one need prove to oneself what one already knows to be true.
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> It's the incorruptible _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature, which persists as your guide toward the way of intellectual and moral rectitude, or as your  judge despite the fallen and rebellious aspect of human nature.  This along with the empirical repercussions in nature of disregarding its recommendations is God's system of checks and balances against your violation of _His_ inalienable rights and authority, and the dignity of your fellow human beings.
> 
> Hence, don't tell me you don't see that which is universally recognized by all as I have just proven, indeed, as you and your cohorts have unwittingly and repeatedly proven every time you think to challenge their existence on the grounds of their alleged neutralization via one of the *three* correlative means:  murder, oppression or theft, none of which, quite obviously, ever lays so much as a glove on the ultimate essence of these rights!
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> "What is the essence of the thing?"  What is it, really?
> 
> Yet, as any astute observer may see, one need not appeal to God's existence to demonstrate the actuality of natural morality's imperatives.  It's not rationally possible to refute their existence without proving their existence.  Hence, they are axiomatically true for all intents and purposes.  They are self-evident.
> 
> What possible difference would it make to us if beyond the absolute constraints of human consciousness reality is ultimately the stuff of utter chaos.  We do not live our lives or think our lives as if two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  Indeed, how could we possibly know if the ultimate facts of realty _were_ the stuff of chaos?
> 
> The distinctions of relativism are the dogma that make no difference.  *Yawn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gibberish and sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule:  treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link me to something that verifies that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sociopath.
Click to expand...


name calling now ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath?  Clinical question.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath?



Seriously----name calling ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously----name calling ?
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension.  This is purely clinical.  You're behavior is akin to that of a sociopath.

For example, I asked you a two simple questions.

You evade them . . . repeatedly.  Sociopaths are like that.  Paranoid, narcissistic, un-empathetic, evasive, suspicious, dishonest, without shame, manipulative. . . .  just saying, wondering.

That's not normal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order for me to believe that a dichotomy exists we need to change the wording.  You simply cannot have an "inalienable right"  that can be taken away.  Its not logical unless you pretend inalienable doesn't mean what it actually means. Same with natural right. All of them are man made rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you have failed to present a single example of anyone ever taking away a right. You keep arguing that the fact that people die is proof that they do not have a right to life without actually offering any evidence to back up your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are put in jail.
Click to expand...


You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you have failed to present a single example of anyone ever taking away a right. You keep arguing that the fact that people die is proof that they do not have a right to life without actually offering any evidence to back up your conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are put in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?
Click to expand...


No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously----name calling ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension.  This is purely clinical.  You're behavior is akin to that of a sociopath.
> 
> For example, I asked you a two simple questions.
> 
> You evade them . . . repeatedly.  Sociopaths are like that.  Paranoid, narcissistic, un-empathetic, evasive, suspicious, dishonest, without shame, manipulative. . . .  just saying, wondering.
> 
> That's not normal.
Click to expand...


No----you pretty clearly said sociopath. It's one word--easy to understand--requires no reading comprehension. Spin spin spin-----how can I call that person a name and try to stay within the rules.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are put in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
Click to expand...


The essence of a human being is behavior?  You have to follow rules in order to have this essence?  This essence leaves you in jail?

This is not normal.  Disconnect.  Separation.  Apartness.  Superficial.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are put in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
Click to expand...


Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?
Click to expand...


You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The essence of a human being is behavior?  You have to follow rules in order to have this essence?  This essence leaves you in jail?
> 
> This is not normal.  Disconnect.  Separation.  Apartness.  Superficial.
Click to expand...


Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?
Click to expand...


Cute. But I suppose turning their own trolling nonsense back on them is only fair.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.
Click to expand...


How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute. But I suppose turning their own trolling nonsense back on them is only fair.
Click to expand...


It is also a lot of fun.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?
Click to expand...


You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.
Click to expand...


If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?
Click to expand...


The government----our government gave that right to you.


----------



## KokomoJojo

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?
Click to expand...


Doesnt mean a human gave them to you.

Anything granted by government is a political right.  Not a right of man.


----------



## KokomoJojo

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government----our government gave that right to you.
Click to expand...


hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them


----------



## KokomoJojo

Asclepias said:


> In order for me to believe that a dichotomy exists we need to change the wording. * You simply cannot have an "inalienable right"  that can be taken away.*   Its not logical unless you pretend inalienable doesn't mean what it  actually means. Same with natural right. All of them are man made  rights.




true, however the government at least in the us does whatever the hell it pleases to suit "its" agenda.

Age  old since the beginnings of aristocracies and force imposed, they since  their inception *merely change the the meaning of the words* or create  new words.

Such as behavior being substituted for action or  simply putting an idea in the minds of the public and over time changing  the definitions in the dictionary to popular usage rather than having a  standard for legitimately constructed language.  

Example:
*
FROM THIS:*




They got you by the balls.

Most people are none the wiser because they get "educated" with this definition: 

*TO THIS:*
*exterminate** 1. to destroy (living things*, esp pests or vermin) completely; annihilate; eliminate



where it then becomes the new tradition despite its meaning at the time it was used.


----------



## dilloduck

That's the concern that critics of Natural rights have too. Who does the deciding and defining. The UN gave it a shot in 1948---they chose to believe in them.


----------



## KokomoJojo

dilloduck said:


> That's the concern that critics of Natural rights have too. Who does the deciding and defining. The UN gave it a shot in 1948---they chose to believe in them.




the courts generally, however we know or should know how corrupt they are.

its in the bible actually, they talk about the destruction of the language and today it is a total shit mess.  You go into court and say a word and if the judge dont like your smile they interpret it contrary to your intended meaning.  Its always been bend over to government.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I believe things have value whether or not somebody recognizes the value.
> 
> You obviously don't believe that.
> 
> Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.
> 
> So further discussion is pointless, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a noble belief and in that frame of reference all things indeed have value for you.  However since I believe value depends on usefulness and worth I am curious on how something holds value for you that you cannot use?  For example how much value do you place on water in a grocery store full of water as opposed to half a bottle of water while lost in a desert?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The availability or urgency of something can increase its price or perception of worth, but not its value.  Water in some form is a necessity of life for human existence and humans will suffer without enough of it regardless of where they are or their circumstances when they are deprived of it.  It has equal value whether the body needs it in the desert or whether the body needs it in a grocery store.  A body can die in either place if deprived of water for a sufficiently length of time.   If you consume water that your body needs with absolutely no consciousness of relieving thirst or consciousness of the benefits to the body, it will have the same value nevertheless.  And that value is not diminished one bit if somebody deprives you of water.
Click to expand...


In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.

Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Human beings cannot make diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. *
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness _are_ absolute.  They also are inherently universal.
> 
> How does one distinguish the difference between a square and a triangle.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> They're not the same thing.
> ____________________________________
> 
> The lesson here is slightly more complex.
> 
> _*2 + 2 = 4*_.
> 
> *2 + 2 = 5*.
> 
> Which is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said the bolded before. IMO only one idea can be true or both are wrong.  As far as the math problem goes what is the key?  Are we doing this base 10?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tedious, isn't it?
> 
> Never mind!
> 
> 4!
> 
> But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4?  Where!
> 
> Human consciousness!
> 
> *How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?
> 
> We don't!  Not in any immediate sense.*
> 
> But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.
> 
> What does that tell you about innate rights?
> 
> Where do they reside?
Click to expand...


Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.


----------



## Asclepias

KokomoJojo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesnt mean a human gave them to you.
> 
> Anything granted by government is a political right.  Not a right of man.
Click to expand...


Humans make governments.


----------



## Asclepias

KokomoJojo said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government----our government gave that right to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them
Click to expand...


Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government----our government gave that right to you.
Click to expand...


Except that I can actually cite court cases that show that rights exist outside of government purview. For example, in Griswald v Connecticut the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy even though it is never actually mentioned anywhere in law or the Constitution.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> That's the concern that critics of Natural rights have too. Who does the deciding and defining. The UN gave it a shot in 1948---they chose to believe in them.



There are governments that prefer to pretend that the only rights that actually exist are the ones they choose to acknowledge? Who'da think it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said the bolded before. IMO only one idea can be true or both are wrong.  As far as the math problem goes what is the key?  Are we doing this base 10?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tedious, isn't it?
> 
> Never mind!
> 
> 4!
> 
> But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4?  Where!
> 
> Human consciousness!
> 
> *How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?
> 
> We don't!  Not in any immediate sense.*
> 
> But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.
> 
> What does that tell you about innate rights?
> 
> Where do they reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.
Click to expand...


Tell me something, if natural rights do not exist, what possible objection could you logically mount to slavery? Or even discrimination and racism?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government----our government gave that right to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
Click to expand...


Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated?  To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten".  How can something so important be so worthless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the right to not be eaten certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist *what good are they if they have to be protected *and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
Click to expand...


Don't you realize that we live in a world where there is good and evil in which is demonstrated on a daily basis be it in proof there of ? If we lived in a world where evil didnot exist, then we would need not the protections of those rights in which we are born with. Now evil is not born, but rather it is something that has gotten loosed within the world in which we do live in, and it seeks to consume us if we do not recognize the very things in which we are born with that is good, and that is born within each and everyone of us from the beginning of our lives.

The Bible lays all of this out for us, and throughout the generations we see the results of it all, and we have made records that have been laid down through out history of it all just as well. Any man who claims he is ingnorant of these things, is either lying or playing Satans game for him.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
Click to expand...


even a blind wild hog finds an acorn now and then


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I said the bolded before. IMO only one idea can be true or both are wrong.  As far as the math problem goes what is the key?  Are we doing this base 10?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tedious, isn't it?
> 
> Never mind!
> 
> 4!
> 
> But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4?  Where!
> 
> Human consciousness!
> 
> *How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?
> 
> We don't!  Not in any immediate sense.*
> 
> But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.
> 
> What does that tell you about innate rights?
> 
> Where do they reside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.
Click to expand...

And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?

A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.

There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.


----------



## dilloduck

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tedious, isn't it?
> 
> Never mind!
> 
> 4!
> 
> But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4?  Where!
> 
> Human consciousness!
> 
> *How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?
> 
> We don't!  Not in any immediate sense.*
> 
> But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.
> 
> What does that tell you about innate rights?
> 
> Where do they reside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?
> 
> A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.
> 
> There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.
Click to expand...


10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.
> 
> 
> 
> And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?
> 
> A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.
> 
> There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse
Click to expand...


I started to read that link, but my bullshit meter exploded when I read about the sharpened teeth of the first kid Shamdeo. Did the wolves that allegedly raised him teach him how to sharpen his teeth?


----------



## beagle9

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?
> 
> A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.
> 
> There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started to read that link, but my bullshit meter exploded when I read about the sharpened teeth of the first kid Shamdeo. Did the wolves that allegedly raised him teach him how to sharpen his teeth?
Click to expand...

LOL just to funny they are...LOL

Never a dull moment with some of these people is there ? LOL


----------



## dilloduck

No feral children ever existed ? Is that the claim ?


----------



## dblack

Just thought I'd drop in here with a reminder, amongst all the trollage, to be mindful of the agendas involved. There's a reason some people are throwing their poo around trying to undermine the idea of human rights.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> Just thought I'd drop in here with a reminder, amongst all the trollage, to be mindful of the agendas involved. There's a reason some people are throwing their poo around trying to undermine the idea of human rights.



 The OP is  regarding Natural rights----what is the natural nature of man anyway?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tedious, isn't it?
> 
> Never mind!
> 
> 4!
> 
> But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4?  Where!
> 
> Human consciousness!
> 
> *How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?
> 
> We don't!  Not in any immediate sense.*
> 
> But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.
> 
> What does that tell you about innate rights?
> 
> Where do they reside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me something, if natural rights do not exist, what possible objection could you logically mount to slavery? Or even discrimination and racism?
Click to expand...


Who said I couldn't mount a logical argument and why would I have to mount a logical argument in the first place?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
Click to expand...

Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.


----------



## Intense

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even a blind wild hog finds an acorn now and then
Click to expand...


Well then, that wild hog has an advantage over you, being able to reason and think for itself, with or without government direction.  You on the other hand need government sanction, first, in all things. 

Question.... What actually, in truth, does government give, that it did not first, acquire from someone else? Be it a thought or concept, or something material? Why do you confuse government with being the author or source, rather than the steward or administrator? Truth, in something government can lead, but, more often, it lags, adapting to trends already in heavy practice. Why do you think that is?


----------



## Intense

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
Click to expand...


I respectfully disagree. Animals do exhibit moral behavior. Consider the possibility that there may be, or is, a structure to the Universe, to Creation, beyond our understanding and perception. In all things there is a right and wrong.


----------



## dilloduck

Intense said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even a blind wild hog finds an acorn now and then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, that wild hog has an advantage over you, being able to reason and think for itself, with or without government direction.  You on the other hand need government sanction, first, in all things.
> 
> Question.... What actually, in truth, does government give, that it did not first, acquire from someone else? Be it a thought or concept, or something material? Why do you confuse government with being the author or source, rather than the steward or administrator? Truth, in something government can lead, but, more often, it lags, adapting to trends already in heavy practice. Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...


That hog is not reasoning--it's operating on pure instinct. I've never claimed the government is the source of anything. it's basically a civilized mob that attempts to be the good guys and protect certain behavior while punishing others in order to create a greater good.


----------



## dilloduck

Intense said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree. Animals do exhibit moral behavior. Consider the possibility that there may be, or is, a structure to the Universe, to Creation, beyond our understanding and perception. In all things there is a right and wrong.
Click to expand...


and a good and a bad ?  Are these concepts universal and identical in every culture in the world ?


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them.  In your example, the &#8216;right to not be eaten&#8217; certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed.  You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.
> 
> Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.
> 
> Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist *what good are they if they have to be protected *and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you realize that we live in a world where there is good and evil in which is demonstrated on a daily basis be it in proof there of ? If we lived in a world where evil didnot exist, then we would need not the protections of those rights in which we are born with. Now evil is not born, but rather it is something that has gotten loosed within the world in which we do live in, and it seeks to consume us if we do not recognize the very things in which we are born with that is good, and that is born within each and everyone of us from the beginning of our lives.
> 
> The Bible lays all of this out for us, and throughout the generations we see the results of it all, and we have made records that have been laid down through out history of it all just as well. Any man who claims he is ingnorant of these things, is either lying or playing Satans game for him.
Click to expand...


Are we speaking religious good and evil or are we talking the behavior we label as good and bad?  IMO there is no religious good except that which is inspired by the belief in a higher being. That is a construct of man. IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.

The Bible is another example of humans getting together and deciding to provide a moral code that will safeguard the model of society they deemed desirable. The sad thing is that it has great messages and lessons for good living but it is so full of errors and contradictions that it is apparent it was not divinely inspired. That sounds suspiciously like the imperfect human mind at work to me. 

If I wanted a group of people to behave a certain way I would claim this way of living came from something more powerful and wise than myself.  I would appeal to the human need for security in the context of social living. I would condemn the bad behaviour that anyone could easily observe that destroys the dynamic I wanted to create.  Lastly I would make sure no one could ever prove that my source did not exist by making it invisible and unquestionable.


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tedious, isn't it?
> 
> Never mind!
> 
> 4!
> 
> But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4?  Where!
> 
> Human consciousness!
> 
> *How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?
> 
> We don't!  Not in any immediate sense.*
> 
> But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.
> 
> The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.
> 
> So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.
> 
> What does that tell you about innate rights?
> 
> Where do they reside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?
> 
> A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.
> 
> There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.
Click to expand...


Lets say you are correct and someone/something has to program these rights into mans mind.  Can you prove this something exists without resorting to conjecture?  It does not exist except in the mind of man looking for a rational explanation for his ability to think in the abstract and alter nature. If man accepted his ability without questioning it man would be a lot better off.  Using a computer to provide an example wont work simply because a computer is a man made object. I did not exist until man made it.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist *what good are they if they have to be protected *and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you realize that we live in a world where there is good and evil in which is demonstrated on a daily basis be it in proof there of ? If we lived in a world where evil didnot exist, then we would need not the protections of those rights in which we are born with. Now evil is not born, but rather it is something that has gotten loosed within the world in which we do live in, and it seeks to consume us if we do not recognize the very things in which we are born with that is good, and that is born within each and everyone of us from the beginning of our lives.
> 
> The Bible lays all of this out for us, and throughout the generations we see the results of it all, and we have made records that have been laid down through out history of it all just as well. Any man who claims he is ingnorant of these things, is either lying or playing Satans game for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we speaking religious good and evil or are we talking the behavior we label as good and bad?  IMO there is no religious good except that which is inspired by the belief in a higher being. That is a construct of man. IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.
> 
> The Bible is another example of humans getting together and deciding to provide a moral code that will safeguard the model of society they deemed desirable. The sad thing is that it has great messages and lessons for good living but it is so full of errors and contradictions that it is apparent it was not divinely inspired. That sounds suspiciously like the imperfect human mind at work to me.
> 
> If I wanted a group of people to behave a certain way I would claim this way of living came from something more powerful and wise than myself.  I would appeal to the human need for security in the context of social living. I would condemn the bad behaviour that anyone could easily observe that destroys the dynamic I wanted to create.  Lastly I would make sure no one could ever prove that my source did not exist by making it invisible and unquestionable.
Click to expand...


Humans are a confused lot----we don't really know what we're supposed to be doing here or how we are supposed to behave. We got the survival thing down. Now what do we do with the rest of our time ?  We could create the perfect environment with worlds peace  and love. If we had that, what would we do with it ?  Spend more time watching movies or posting on the internet ?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a noble belief and in that frame of reference all things indeed have value for you.  However since I believe value depends on usefulness and worth I am curious on how something holds value for you that you cannot use?  For example how much value do you place on water in a grocery store full of water as opposed to half a bottle of water while lost in a desert?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The availability or urgency of something can increase its price or perception of worth, but not its value.  Water in some form is a necessity of life for human existence and humans will suffer without enough of it regardless of where they are or their circumstances when they are deprived of it.  It has equal value whether the body needs it in the desert or whether the body needs it in a grocery store.  A body can die in either place if deprived of water for a sufficiently length of time.   If you consume water that your body needs with absolutely no consciousness of relieving thirst or consciousness of the benefits to the body, it will have the same value nevertheless.  And that value is not diminished one bit if somebody deprives you of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
Click to expand...


Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.  

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.


----------



## Asclepias

Intense said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree. Animals do exhibit moral behavior. Consider the possibility that there may be, or is, a structure to the Universe, to Creation, beyond our understanding and perception. In all things there is a right and wrong.
Click to expand...


Are you sure you are not observing the behavior and labeling it moral? If you are sure can you prove it to me? There is a construct and order to the universe. That is apparent. We cant jump the gun and say it is a divine force that created this perfection and put us very imperfect humans in charge without proof. If i was God there would be no way I would put humans in charge of something I created.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The availability or urgency of something can increase its price or perception of worth, but not its value.  Water in some form is a necessity of life for human existence and humans will suffer without enough of it regardless of where they are or their circumstances when they are deprived of it.  It has equal value whether the body needs it in the desert or whether the body needs it in a grocery store.  A body can die in either place if deprived of water for a sufficiently length of time.   If you consume water that your body needs with absolutely no consciousness of relieving thirst or consciousness of the benefits to the body, it will have the same value nevertheless.  And that value is not diminished one bit if somebody deprives you of water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
Click to expand...


Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The availability or urgency of something can increase its price or perception of worth, but not its value.  Water in some form is a necessity of life for human existence and humans will suffer without enough of it regardless of where they are or their circumstances when they are deprived of it.  It has equal value whether the body needs it in the desert or whether the body needs it in a grocery store.  A body can die in either place if deprived of water for a sufficiently length of time.   If you consume water that your body needs with absolutely no consciousness of relieving thirst or consciousness of the benefits to the body, it will have the same value nevertheless.  And that value is not diminished one bit if somebody deprives you of water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
Click to expand...


I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.

I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
Click to expand...


Easier said than done---these are the things that give people hope and something to believe in. We would be alone without a back up if there wasn't something invisible running the show.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easier said than done---these are the things that give people hope and something to believe in. We would be alone without a back up if there wasn't something invisible running the show.
Click to expand...


I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
Click to expand...


It is a matter of believing or knowing that something exists or not believing it I think.  If I am understanding you, you believe rights are thought up and are assigned by men.  I go with the Founders and the great philosophers who informed them that rights exist apart and separate from what man decides they will be.

And we probably won't agree on that, but boiled down to the simplest concept, it does define the core difference between those who are modern American conservatives/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") as we understand that and those who are modern day progressive/statists/leftists/politicial class/liberals as we understand that.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?
Click to expand...


No.  Seriously I try to use words as they are intended.  I leave selective defintiions up to those who have to do that to deny what to me is the obvious.


----------



## oldfart

Asclepias said:


> IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.



I would quibble here.  Nature is not perfect.  Many traits and mechanisms that have some evolutionary value may also have severely deleterious results.  When any such counterproductive mechanism gets established with regularity, some belief systems treat it as "evil" requiring conscious effort to avoid or overcome.  

Take for example anger.  You stub your toe and shout an expletive.  It hurts.  You are in a foul mood.  As you pass your dog you are tempted to kick it too if it barks.  You are having a bad day.  If you don't make an effort to avoid it, you kick the barking dog.  The dog in turn bites the mailman.  To a Hindu or Buddhist this is passing on bad karma.  Abrahamic faiths label it bad behavior or evil.  Taoists and Confucians simply call it stupid.  

But my point is that all mammals (at least) seemed programmed to react this way when encountering unexpected pain.   There is something about the mechanism itself which is self-perpetuating and leads to negative outcomes.  On an individual and social level it takes some affirmative recognition and action to stop the chain of events.  

Maybe "evil" is too loaded a word for this kind of thing, but it exists and acts like a force of nature.  With humans it is incomparably worse because we think about how we think and act.  Most of our behaviors are habitual, or random, or instinctive; but we have a need to provide a rational justification after the fact for actions we took with no forethought at all.  So we kicked the dog because he was "lazy and wouldn't get out of the way" etc.  Do this often enough and you create a fantasy world of how you justify your own unthinking behavior.  

And those fantasy worlds are what is truly dangerous.  Maybe even evil.


----------



## oldfart

Asclepias said:


> Are you sure you are not observing the behavior and labeling it moral? If you are sure can you prove it to me? There is a construct and order to the universe. That is apparent. We cant jump the gun and say it is a divine force that created this perfection and put us very imperfect humans in charge without proof. If i was God there would be no way I would put humans in charge of something I created.



I think you have stumbled into the Taoist view of the universe.  In Taoist thought, Tao is perfect, but it is not good.  It just is.  When humans adjust their behavior in concert with Tao they do better than when they resist Tao.  Tao is eternal and no one created it.  In one sense, it is simply the basic principles that govern the operation of all things.  You can swim upstream or downstream (one being obviously easier than the other) but you cannot change the direction of the river.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Seriously I try to use words as they are intended.  I leave selective defintiions up to those who have to do that to deny what to me is the obvious.
Click to expand...


then taken in full context the Founding Fathers stated the rights come from God--not from mother nature


----------



## Asclepias

oldfart said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would quibble here.  Nature is not perfect.  Many traits and mechanisms that have some evolutionary value may also have severely deleterious results.  When any such counterproductive mechanism gets established with regularity, some belief systems treat it as "evil" requiring conscious effort to avoid or overcome.
> 
> Take for example anger.  You stub your toe and shout an expletive.  It hurts.  You are in a foul mood.  As you pass your dog you are tempted to kick it too if it barks.  You are having a bad day.  If you don't make an effort to avoid it, you kick the barking dog.  The dog in turn bites the mailman.  To a Hindu or Buddhist this is passing on bad karma.  Abrahamic faiths label it bad behavior or evil.  Taoists and Confucians simply call it stupid.
> 
> But my point is that all mammals (at least) seemed programmed to react this way when encountering unexpected pain.   There is something about the mechanism itself which is self-perpetuating and leads to negative outcomes.  On an individual and social level it takes some affirmative recognition and action to stop the chain of events.
> 
> Maybe "evil" is too loaded a word for this kind of thing, but it exists and acts like a force of nature.  With humans it is incomparably worse because we think about how we think and act.  Most of our behaviors are habitual, or random, or instinctive; but we have a need to provide a rational justification after the fact for actions we took with no forethought at all.  So we kicked the dog because he was "lazy and wouldn't get out of the way" etc.  Do this often enough and you create a fantasy world of how you justify your own unthinking behavior.
> 
> And those fantasy worlds are what is truly dangerous.  Maybe even evil.
Click to expand...




> Take for example anger.  You stub your toe and shout an expletive.  It hurts.  You are in a foul mood.  As you pass your dog you are tempted to kick it too if it barks.  You are having a bad day.  If you don't make an effort to avoid it,* you kick the barking dog.  The dog in turn bites the mailman.*



Do you see what you did here?  Did the dog bite the mailman because you kicked it or did the dog bite the mailman because the dog was protecting its turf?

Maybe perfect is not the right word for something a divine entity would create or be as in the term "nature" as it is not perfect in terms of the human belief.  It supplies all of our needs but not our wants because our particular life form evolved dependent on what was supplied.  That would really concern me if there was an imperfect entity making up rights for me and they didn't provide for all of my wants.

I feel that humans are lucky or unlucky enough to have developed the ability to think about what we think about.  In doing so we have come up with some really good things for humans along with some really bad ones.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
Click to expand...


Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.  

Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.

But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.

Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.

In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.


----------



## Asclepias

oldfart said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you are not observing the behavior and labeling it moral? If you are sure can you prove it to me? There is a construct and order to the universe. That is apparent. We cant jump the gun and say it is a divine force that created this perfection and put us very imperfect humans in charge without proof. If i was God there would be no way I would put humans in charge of something I created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have stumbled into the Taoist view of the universe.  In Taoist thought, Tao is perfect, but it is not good.  It just is.  When humans adjust their behavior in concert with Tao they do better than when they resist Tao.  Tao is eternal and no one created it.  In one sense, it is simply the basic principles that govern the operation of all things.  You can swim upstream or downstream (one being obviously easier than the other) but you cannot change the direction of the river.
Click to expand...


Never studied Tao before. Thats pretty much spot on with what I see.  i will have to look into the Taoist view.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
Click to expand...


You vastly underestimate the degree that social pressure has on people. Social pressure teaches us pretty, ugly, good ,bad etc etc etc. Without adult humans to teach us, we are like animals.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
Click to expand...


I may well be wrong but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a logical explanation as to why. 

Its not so hard of a concept to believe. Its actually quite comforting and easy to believe because I *want* to believe it.  Nature, air, God...It makes no difference really if you endow these abstract entities with the qualities of invisibility and "all knowing" in the minds of the people you are speaking to. The net effect is that they are deities in the emotional response elicited from the people being convinced of the concept. 

I disagree with  your assertions that we are not taught quite a few things you seem to believe we just know.  For example, we are taught what is beautiful and what is ugly. That is a entirely different thread though.  You keep forgetting the founders were humans like everyone else.  Just because they founded the country doesn't make them anymore correct about rights than a bum in the street.

Who told you that you were enlightened and I was prejudiced and close minded?  Why did you believe them?


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may well be wrong but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a logical explanation as to why.
> 
> Its not so hard of a concept to believe. Its actually quite comforting and easy to believe because I *want* to believe it.  Nature, air, God...It makes no difference really if you endow these abstract entities with the qualities of invisibility and "all knowing" in the minds of the people you are speaking to. The net effect is that they are deities in the emotional response elicited from the people being convinced of the concept.
> 
> I disagree with  your assertions that we are not taught quite a few things you seem to believe we just know.  For example, we are taught what is beautiful and what is ugly. That is a entirely different thread though.  You keep forgetting the founders were humans like everyone else.  Just because they founded the country doesn't make them anymore correct about rights than a bum in the street.
> 
> Who told you that you were enlightened and I was prejudiced and close minded?  Why did you believe them?
Click to expand...


Nobody told me that.  I figured it out all on my own.  LOL.  And I really didn't intend to get ad hominem and apologize for that lapse into an ad hominem comment.

But accusing me of what I am 'forgetting' is also ad hominem and an unfair comment.  I have never said the Founders were incapable of being human or incapable of error or incapable of any other natural failing of humankind.  They were fallable beings as much as anybody is going to be fallable.

But in the case of natural rights, I see them as being right, because to me there is no reasonable or logical argument to dispute that concept and their observations about it that I know personally to be true.  And the naysayers have nothing, absolutely nothing, equally reasonable or logical with which to dispute their observations about that.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may well be wrong but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a logical explanation as to why.
> 
> Its not so hard of a concept to believe. Its actually quite comforting and easy to believe because I *want* to believe it.  Nature, air, God...It makes no difference really if you endow these abstract entities with the qualities of invisibility and "all knowing" in the minds of the people you are speaking to. The net effect is that they are deities in the emotional response elicited from the people being convinced of the concept.
> 
> I disagree with  your assertions that we are not taught quite a few things you seem to believe we just know.  For example, we are taught what is beautiful and what is ugly. That is a entirely different thread though.  You keep forgetting the founders were humans like everyone else.  Just because they founded the country doesn't make them anymore correct about rights than a bum in the street.
> 
> Who told you that you were enlightened and I was prejudiced and close minded?  Why did you believe them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody told me that.  I figured it out all on my own.  LOL.  And I really didn't intend to get ad hominem and apologize for that lapse into an ad hominem comment.
> 
> But accusing me of what I am 'forgetting' is also ad hominem and an unfair comment.  I have never said the Founders were incapable of being human or incapable of error or incapable of any other natural failing of humankind.  They were fallable beings as much as anybody is going to be fallable.
> 
> But in the case of natural rights, I see them as being right, because to me there is no reasonable or logical argument to dispute that concept and their observations about it that I know personally to be true.  And the naysayers have nothing, absolutely nothing, equally reasonable or logical with which to dispute their observations about that.
Click to expand...


Our Founding Fathers stated that rights were God given. That is not the same as being derived from nature as natural rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You vastly underestimate the degree that social pressure has on people. Social pressure teaches us pretty, ugly, good ,bad etc etc etc. Without adult humans to teach us, we are like animals.
Click to expand...


I have not underestimated social pressure at all.  But I also know that the human spirit is capable of awareness, understanding, and conceptual perceptions that nobody has to teach it.  Both my husband and I chose to be something other than what our parents intended for us or that they ever understood.   I have observed it in my own children.  Neither chose directions for their lives that my husband or I would have chosen for them or that we guided them into.  Nor did anybody else.  They both, however, had their own inate creativity, abilities, desires, and interests.   To recognize that this exists in no way negates or dismisses that cultural conditioning is also a factor in who or what we are.

Each human being is as individual as a snowflake with or without somebody else involving themselves in how somebody else chooses or develops.

I would think it most unfortunate if you see youself as being purely what others have made of you.  How sad would that be?


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may well be wrong but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a logical explanation as to why.
> 
> Its not so hard of a concept to believe. Its actually quite comforting and easy to believe because I *want* to believe it.  Nature, air, God...It makes no difference really if you endow these abstract entities with the qualities of invisibility and "all knowing" in the minds of the people you are speaking to. The net effect is that they are deities in the emotional response elicited from the people being convinced of the concept.
> 
> I disagree with  your assertions that we are not taught quite a few things you seem to believe we just know.  For example, we are taught what is beautiful and what is ugly. That is a entirely different thread though.  You keep forgetting the founders were humans like everyone else.  Just because they founded the country doesn't make them anymore correct about rights than a bum in the street.
> 
> Who told you that you were enlightened and I was prejudiced and close minded?  Why did you believe them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody told me that.  I figured it out all on my own.  LOL.  And I really didn't intend to get ad hominem and apologize for that lapse into an ad hominem comment.
> 
> But accusing me of what I am 'forgetting' is also ad hominem and an unfair comment.  I have never said the Founders were incapable of being human or incapable of error or incapable of any other natural failing of humankind.  They were fallable beings as much as anybody is going to be fallable.
> 
> But in the case of natural rights, I see them as being right, because to me there is no reasonable or logical argument to dispute that concept and their observations about it that I know personally to be true.  And the naysayers have nothing, absolutely nothing, equally reasonable or logical with which to dispute their observations about that.
Click to expand...


I pretty much thought you were the one that came up with the idea.   I too apologize for lapsing into the ad hominem.

So what you are saying is that it is merely your opinion that they were right in saying a creator granted us these rights. Is this a correct assumption on my part or do you have proof?

I see the concept as nothing more than the power of suggestion.  There is an abundance of proof that this is exactly what the concept of natural/inalienable/god-given rights operates on.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You vastly underestimate the degree that social pressure has on people. Social pressure teaches us pretty, ugly, good ,bad etc etc etc. Without adult humans to teach us, we are like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not underestimated social pressure at all.  But I also know that the human spirit is capable of awareness, understanding, and conceptual perceptions that nobody has to teach it.  Both my husband and I chose to be something other than what our parents intended for us or that they ever understood.   I have observed it in my own children.  Neither chose directions for their lives that my husband or I would have chosen for them or that we guided them into.  Nor did anybody else.  They both, however, had their own inate creativity, abilities, desires, and interests.   To recognize that this exists in no way negates or dismisses that cultural conditioning is also a factor in who or what we are.
> 
> Each human being is as individual as a snowflake with or without somebody else involving themselves in how somebody else chooses or develops.
> 
> I would think it most unfortunate if you see youself as being purely what others have made of you.  How sad would that be?
Click to expand...


What part of you is your own original design?  While you are at it please supply me with a completely original thought.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You vastly underestimate the degree that social pressure has on people. Social pressure teaches us pretty, ugly, good ,bad etc etc etc. Without adult humans to teach us, we are like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not underestimated social pressure at all.  But I also know that the human spirit is capable of awareness, understanding, and conceptual perceptions that nobody has to teach it.  Both my husband and I chose to be something other than what our parents intended for us or that they ever understood.   I have observed it in my own children.  Neither chose directions for their lives that my husband or I would have chosen for them or that we guided them into.  Nor did anybody else.  They both, however, had their own inate creativity, abilities, desires, and interests.   To recognize that this exists in no way negates or dismisses that cultural conditioning is also a factor in who or what we are.
> 
> Each human being is as individual as a snowflake with or without somebody else involving themselves in how somebody else chooses or develops.
> 
> I would think it most unfortunate if you see youself as being purely what others have made of you.  How sad would that be?
Click to expand...


I never said anything close to being purely what others have made me. Humans have incredible learning capacity but what they learn is dependent on their teachers. We are able to make choices  that are different from our parents because they aren't our only teachers.  You don't think society taught you good from bad--pretty from ugly ?


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may well be wrong but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a logical explanation as to why.
> 
> Its not so hard of a concept to believe. Its actually quite comforting and easy to believe because I *want* to believe it.  Nature, air, God...It makes no difference really if you endow these abstract entities with the qualities of invisibility and "all knowing" in the minds of the people you are speaking to. The net effect is that they are deities in the emotional response elicited from the people being convinced of the concept.
> 
> I disagree with  your assertions that we are not taught quite a few things you seem to believe we just know.  For example, we are taught what is beautiful and what is ugly. That is a entirely different thread though.  You keep forgetting the founders were humans like everyone else.  Just because they founded the country doesn't make them anymore correct about rights than a bum in the street.
> 
> Who told you that you were enlightened and I was prejudiced and close minded?  Why did you believe them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody told me that.  I figured it out all on my own.  LOL.  And I really didn't intend to get ad hominem and apologize for that lapse into an ad hominem comment.
> 
> But accusing me of what I am 'forgetting' is also ad hominem and an unfair comment.  I have never said the Founders were incapable of being human or incapable of error or incapable of any other natural failing of humankind.  They were fallable beings as much as anybody is going to be fallable.
> 
> But in the case of natural rights, I see them as being right, because to me there is no reasonable or logical argument to dispute that concept and their observations about it that I know personally to be true.  And the naysayers have nothing, absolutely nothing, equally reasonable or logical with which to dispute their observations about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers stated that rights were God given. That is not the same as being derived from nature as natural rights.
Click to expand...


Yes dear.  It is exactly the same.  It is the name the Founders gave those rights.  But it was the very same rights, no different, nor did they perceive them as different, from the 'natural rights' which is the name others gave them.

Too many are so anti-religious or anti-Christian that they get their shorts in a wad over the terminology and are emotionally or mentally incapable of separating that from the concept.  And that is unfortunate.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody told me that.  I figured it out all on my own.  LOL.  And I really didn't intend to get ad hominem and apologize for that lapse into an ad hominem comment.
> 
> But accusing me of what I am 'forgetting' is also ad hominem and an unfair comment.  I have never said the Founders were incapable of being human or incapable of error or incapable of any other natural failing of humankind.  They were fallable beings as much as anybody is going to be fallable.
> 
> But in the case of natural rights, I see them as being right, because to me there is no reasonable or logical argument to dispute that concept and their observations about it that I know personally to be true.  And the naysayers have nothing, absolutely nothing, equally reasonable or logical with which to dispute their observations about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers stated that rights were God given. That is not the same as being derived from nature as natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes dear.  It is exactly the same.  It is the name the Founders gave those rights.  But it was the very same rights, no different, nor did they perceive them as different, from the 'natural rights' which is the name others gave them.
> 
> Too many are so anti-religious or anti-Christian that they get their shorts in a wad over the terminology and are emotionally or mentally incapable of separating that from the concept.  And that is unfortunate.
Click to expand...


You mean of course that you think they are the same-----natural rights advocates and theorists would vehemently disagree with you. To them God is supernatural.


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers stated that rights were God given. That is not the same as being derived from nature as natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes dear.  It is exactly the same.  It is the name the Founders gave those rights.  But it was the very same rights, no different, nor did they perceive them as different, from the 'natural rights' which is the name others gave them.
> 
> Too many are so anti-religious or anti-Christian that they get their shorts in a wad over the terminology and are emotionally or mentally incapable of separating that from the concept.  And that is unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean of course that you think they are the same-----natural rights advocates and theorists would vehemently disagree with you. To them God is supernatural.
Click to expand...


Sigh.  Whatever.  As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept.    I don't think they are the same.  I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> No feral children ever existed ? Is that the claim ?



Does the fact that I found a fake story in your link somehow prove I believe that no children were ever lost or abandoned? Somehow, I don't thinks so, but they are extremely rare, and your list contains at least one hoax, and claims, like the sharpened teeth thing, that make me question the veracity of other stories. I hate to blow your mind here, but Tarzan is fiction.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes dear.  It is exactly the same.  It is the name the Founders gave those rights.  But it was the very same rights, no different, nor did they perceive them as different, from the 'natural rights' which is the name others gave them.
> 
> Too many are so anti-religious or anti-Christian that they get their shorts in a wad over the terminology and are emotionally or mentally incapable of separating that from the concept.  And that is unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean of course that you think they are the same-----natural rights advocates and theorists would vehemently disagree with you. To them God is supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Whatever.  As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept.    I don't think they are the same.  I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.
Click to expand...


ahhh  those who disagree who are intellectually inferior and have the wrong emotional temperament ?  How truly humble of you..

check this out and tell me who the inferior intellects are.

Human Rights*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists.  So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something, if natural rights do not exist, what possible objection could you logically mount to slavery? Or even discrimination and racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I couldn't mount a logical argument and why would I have to mount a logical argument in the first place?
Click to expand...


Remember all those comments you made about natural rights being an oxymoron? Any argument against slavery based on anything other than economics, which you don't understand, or natural rights will end up being an oxymoron.

As for your questions, I say you can't mount a logical argument against it, and you have to because you claim to be smarter than I am.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
Click to expand...


The scientists are wrong?

Do you have evidence of that, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> even a blind wild hog finds an acorn now and then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, that wild hog has an advantage over you, being able to reason and think for itself, with or without government direction.  You on the other hand need government sanction, first, in all things.
> 
> Question.... What actually, in truth, does government give, that it did not first, acquire from someone else? Be it a thought or concept, or something material? Why do you confuse government with being the author or source, rather than the steward or administrator? Truth, in something government can lead, but, more often, it lags, adapting to trends already in heavy practice. Why do you think that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That hog is not reasoning--it's operating on pure instinct. I've never claimed the government is the source of anything. it's basically a civilized mob that attempts to be the good guys and protect certain behavior while punishing others in order to create a greater good.
Click to expand...


Funny thing, science has found evidence that fruit flies have free will. Yet, for some reason, you still insist that the only operative is instinct.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree. Animals do exhibit moral behavior. Consider the possibility that there may be, or is, a structure to the Universe, to Creation, beyond our understanding and perception. In all things there is a right and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and a good and a bad ?  Are these concepts universal and identical in every culture in the world ?
Click to expand...


Do you have an example of a culture that doesn't believe in good and evil?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something, if natural rights do not exist, what possible objection could you logically mount to slavery? Or even discrimination and racism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I couldn't mount a logical argument and why would I have to mount a logical argument in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember all those comments you made about natural rights being an oxymoron? Any argument against slavery based on anything other than economics, which you don't understand, or natural rights will end up being an oxymoron.
> 
> As for your questions, I said you couldn't mount a logical argument against it, and you have to because you claim to be smarter than I am.
Click to expand...


Its funny to see you so confident you think you can tell me my argument can only be based on economics.  As for you mistaken belief I couldn't mount a logical argument against slavery please don't be naive.  I can quickly dispatch your deluded, naive, assertion and send it off to the corner wearing a dunce hat.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientists are wrong?
> 
> Do you have evidence of that, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Click to expand...


Are scientist humans?  Did the scientists label the behavior morals or did the animals?  If so please provide me some proof.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists are wrong?
> 
> Do you have evidence of that, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are scientist humans?  Did the scientists label the behavior morals or did the animals?  If so please provide me some proof.
Click to expand...


Just where do scientists get their authority from anyway? Other scientists ?


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists are wrong?
> 
> Do you have evidence of that, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are scientist humans?  Did the scientists label the behavior morals or did the animals?  If so please provide me some proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just where do scientists get their authority from anyway? Other scientists ?
Click to expand...


Are those other scientist humans?  Quantums problem is he cannot mount an argument so his tactic is to nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist *what good are they if they have to be protected *and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you realize that we live in a world where there is good and evil in which is demonstrated on a daily basis be it in proof there of ? If we lived in a world where evil didnot exist, then we would need not the protections of those rights in which we are born with. Now evil is not born, but rather it is something that has gotten loosed within the world in which we do live in, and it seeks to consume us if we do not recognize the very things in which we are born with that is good, and that is born within each and everyone of us from the beginning of our lives.
> 
> The Bible lays all of this out for us, and throughout the generations we see the results of it all, and we have made records that have been laid down through out history of it all just as well. Any man who claims he is ingnorant of these things, is either lying or playing Satans game for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we speaking religious good and evil or are we talking the behavior we label as good and bad?  IMO there is no religious good except that which is inspired by the belief in a higher being. That is a construct of man. IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know freedom scares you, you have said so many times. That does not make it evil, or even bad, it just means you need to evolve. 

That said, I can guarantee you that there are evil people. Sooner or later you are going to come across an example, and realize that, despite your naive beliefs that it is just a behavior pattern that is contrary to the need to belong to a group. In fact, evil people actually prefer to be part of a group, it gives them more power. Jim Jones had no problems with belonging to a group, and he even capitalized on the desire that weak minded people have to belong to a group to spread his evil to others. Charles Manson is another example, as is McCarthy.



Asclepias said:


> The Bible is another example of humans getting together and deciding to provide a moral code that will safeguard the model of society they deemed desirable. The sad thing is that it has great messages and lessons for good living but it is so full of errors and contradictions that it is apparent it was not divinely inspired. That sounds suspiciously like the imperfect human mind at work to me.



Even if that is true, which is actually debatable, despite your claim of superior knowledge, it is irrelevant. 



Asclepias said:


> If I wanted a group of people to behave a certain way I would claim this way of living came from something more powerful and wise than myself.  I would appeal to the human need for security in the context of social living. I would condemn the bad behaviour that anyone could easily observe that destroys the dynamic I wanted to create.  Lastly I would make sure no one could ever prove that my source did not exist by making it invisible and unquestionable.



Funny how the last guy to start a brand new religion ignored that advice, isn't it? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Foxfyre said:


> [
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.



Rights are a human invention whether you call them natural or not.

Ask a conservative if the right to an abortion is a natural right.  99% will say no.  If there were such a thing as natural rights, however, abortion would clearly be one of them.

Conservatives want to declare some rights as natural rights, but also want to declare which rights are not.

That is invention.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you realize that we live in a world where there is good and evil in which is demonstrated on a daily basis be it in proof there of ? If we lived in a world where evil didnot exist, then we would need not the protections of those rights in which we are born with. Now evil is not born, but rather it is something that has gotten loosed within the world in which we do live in, and it seeks to consume us if we do not recognize the very things in which we are born with that is good, and that is born within each and everyone of us from the beginning of our lives.
> 
> The Bible lays all of this out for us, and throughout the generations we see the results of it all, and we have made records that have been laid down through out history of it all just as well. Any man who claims he is ingnorant of these things, is either lying or playing Satans game for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we speaking religious good and evil or are we talking the behavior we label as good and bad?  IMO there is no religious good except that which is inspired by the belief in a higher being. That is a construct of man. IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know freedom scares you, you have said so many times. That does not make it evil, or even bad, it just means you need to evolve.
> 
> That said, I can guarantee you that there are evil people. Sooner or later you are going to come across an example, and realize that, despite your naive beliefs that it is just a behavior pattern that is contrary to the need to belong to a group. In fact, evil people actually prefer to be part of a group, it gives them more power. Jim Jones had no problems with belonging to a group, and he even capitalized on the desire that weak minded people have to belong to a group to spread his evil to others. Charles Manson is another example, as is McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is another example of humans getting together and deciding to provide a moral code that will safeguard the model of society they deemed desirable. The sad thing is that it has great messages and lessons for good living but it is so full of errors and contradictions that it is apparent it was not divinely inspired. That sounds suspiciously like the imperfect human mind at work to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if that is true, which is actually debatable, despite your claim of superior knowledge, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted a group of people to behave a certain way I would claim this way of living came from something more powerful and wise than myself.  I would appeal to the human need for security in the context of social living. I would condemn the bad behaviour that anyone could easily observe that destroys the dynamic I wanted to create.  Lastly I would make sure no one could ever prove that my source did not exist by making it invisible and unquestionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the last guy to start a brand new religion ignored that advice, isn't it? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.
Click to expand...


You should be able to post where I said freedom scares me. I cant stand liars.  I see you are back to your old tricks of diversion in the face of being unable to mount an argument that lasts beyond my very next post refuting it.  You just earned a trip to the penalty box until you get your act together like the other adults on the thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?
Click to expand...


That would be Asclepias, which is why he never responded to my post where I asked him to explain why unalienable rights is an oxymoron.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value.  If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.
> 
> Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected.  Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.
> 
> The way I see it:
> 
> "Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something.   And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.
> 
> "Value" is the importance or significance of something.  The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger.  And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.
> 
> For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered.  And it exists.
> 
> For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them.  Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.
> 
> The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them.  It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..
> 
> And what is an unalienable right?  It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
Click to expand...


I don't get why you think nature is invisible. I also do not understand why you think you are the only person on the planet that can think, especially when you don't actually think.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easier said than done---these are the things that give people hope and something to believe in. We would be alone without a back up if there wasn't something invisible running the show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.
Click to expand...


You would hope that everyone else in the world agree with you? Why would they do that?


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean of course that you think they are the same-----natural rights advocates and theorists would vehemently disagree with you. To them God is supernatural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Whatever.  As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept.    I don't think they are the same.  I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ahhh  those who disagree who are intellectually inferior and have the wrong emotional temperament ?  How truly humble of you..
> 
> check this out and tell me who the inferior intellects are.
> 
> Human Rights*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Click to expand...


And so often such intellectual inferiority is accompanied by a reading dysfunction as well????  I said no such thing about those who disagree with me.  I said those who are incapable of separating a concept from whatever religious connotation some people put on it are temperamentally/emotionally challenged as well as being intellectually challenged.  Try to keep up.   I've always thought you brighter than the average bear.  You are capable of understanding if you just will.

Or if you are intentionally using non sequitur and straw men to stir the pot, please pick on somebody else.  I'm really not in the mood.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easier said than done---these are the things that give people hope and something to believe in. We would be alone without a back up if there wasn't something invisible running the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would hope that everyone else in the world agree with you? Why would they do that?
Click to expand...


The UN certainly wants that.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Seriously I try to use words as they are intended.  I leave selective defintiions up to those who have to do that to deny what to me is the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then taken in full context the Founding Fathers stated the rights come from God--not from mother nature
Click to expand...


Not true, they believed rights came from nature as _they understood it_. The mere fact that we now understand nature better than they did does not invalidate the theory of natural rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would quibble here.  Nature is not perfect.  Many traits and mechanisms that have some evolutionary value may also have severely deleterious results.  When any such counterproductive mechanism gets established with regularity, some belief systems treat it as "evil" requiring conscious effort to avoid or overcome.
> 
> Take for example anger.  You stub your toe and shout an expletive.  It hurts.  You are in a foul mood.  As you pass your dog you are tempted to kick it too if it barks.  You are having a bad day.  If you don't make an effort to avoid it, you kick the barking dog.  The dog in turn bites the mailman.  To a Hindu or Buddhist this is passing on bad karma.  Abrahamic faiths label it bad behavior or evil.  Taoists and Confucians simply call it stupid.
> 
> But my point is that all mammals (at least) seemed programmed to react this way when encountering unexpected pain.   There is something about the mechanism itself which is self-perpetuating and leads to negative outcomes.  On an individual and social level it takes some affirmative recognition and action to stop the chain of events.
> 
> Maybe "evil" is too loaded a word for this kind of thing, but it exists and acts like a force of nature.  With humans it is incomparably worse because we think about how we think and act.  Most of our behaviors are habitual, or random, or instinctive; but we have a need to provide a rational justification after the fact for actions we took with no forethought at all.  So we kicked the dog because he was "lazy and wouldn't get out of the way" etc.  Do this often enough and you create a fantasy world of how you justify your own unthinking behavior.
> 
> And those fantasy worlds are what is truly dangerous.  Maybe even evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take for example anger.  You stub your toe and shout an expletive.  It hurts.  You are in a foul mood.  As you pass your dog you are tempted to kick it too if it barks.  You are having a bad day.  If you don't make an effort to avoid it,* you kick the barking dog.  The dog in turn bites the mailman.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you see what you did here?  Did the dog bite the mailman because you kicked it or did the dog bite the mailman because the dog was protecting its turf?
> 
> Maybe perfect is not the right word for something a divine entity would create or be as in the term "nature" as it is not perfect in terms of the human belief.  It supplies all of our needs but not our wants because our particular life form evolved dependent on what was supplied.  That would really concern me if there was an imperfect entity making up rights for me and they didn't provide for all of my wants.
> 
> I feel that humans are lucky or unlucky enough to have developed the ability to think about what we think about.  In doing so we have come up with some really good things for humans along with some really bad ones.
Click to expand...


You don't believe in God because you don't have everything you want? That does say something about you.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Whatever.  As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept.    I don't think they are the same.  I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahhh  those who disagree who are intellectually inferior and have the wrong emotional temperament ?  How truly humble of you..
> 
> check this out and tell me who the inferior intellects are.
> 
> Human Rights*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so often such intellectual inferiority is accompanied by a reading dysfunction as well????  I said no such thing about those who disagree with me.  I said those who are incapable of separating a concept from whatever religious connotation some people put on it are temperamentally/emotionally challenged as well as being intellectually challenged.  Try to keep up.   I've always thought you brighter than the average bear.  You are capable of understanding if you just will.
> 
> Or if you are intentionally using non sequitur and straw men to stir the pot, please pick on somebody else.  I'm really not in the mood.
Click to expand...


The don't play Fox. You know full well that you don't get to post unchallenged here. That link plainly shows that those with the intellect and emotional temperament to separate religion from a universal truth STILL disagree with you.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Seriously I try to use words as they are intended.  I leave selective defintiions up to those who have to do that to deny what to me is the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then taken in full context the Founding Fathers stated the rights come from God--not from mother nature
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true, they believed rights came from nature as _they understood it_. The mere fact that we now understand nature better than they did does not invalidate the theory of natural rights.
Click to expand...


and they understood GOD to be the creator of everything including nature.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would hope that everyone else in the world agree with you? Why would they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UN certainly wants that.
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Click to expand...


Those guys are obviously dummies.  They couldn't possibly count.


----------



## Pennywise

Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> then taken in full context the Founding Fathers stated the rights come from God--not from mother nature
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, they believed rights came from nature as _they understood it_. The mere fact that we now understand nature better than they did does not invalidate the theory of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and they understood GOD to be the creator of everything including nature.
Click to expand...


Thats pretty inconvenient for his argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree it is not the same thing.  I believe worth is inherent in the term value.  Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.
> 
> I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible.  It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is one perspective, though I think you might have a difficult time providing a logical rationale for why you are right about that.
> 
> Some of the more devout believers here, for their own reasons, believe our natural rights do come from God.  The Founders expressed it that way.  Many/most of the great philosophers who preceded them did not express it that way.  A concept of natural rights is not dependent on any form of deity.
> 
> But regardless of how they came to be--why is it so difficult to grasp/accept that some things just are?  We create words to distinguish or identify them, but we do nothing to create them.  Instincts.  Appreciation/pleasure.  Desire.  Hope.  A yearning for liberty.  Thought.
> 
> Nobody taught us to know what is or is not pleasurable for us.  Nobody taught us to know what is ugly or beautiful to us.  Nobody taught us to desire.  Nobody taught us to fall in love.  Nobody taught us to imagine.   All these come naturally to the human reality as does the desire for liberty.  And as with all other components of humankind that exists whether we are aware of them or have words to designate them,  liberty, as the Founders understood it, is expressed in natural rights that exist whether or not we are aware of them or have words to define them.
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may well be wrong but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a logical explanation as to why.
> 
> Its not so hard of a concept to believe. Its actually quite comforting and easy to believe because I *want* to believe it.  Nature, air, God...It makes no difference really if you endow these abstract entities with the qualities of invisibility and "all knowing" in the minds of the people you are speaking to. The net effect is that they are deities in the emotional response elicited from the people being convinced of the concept.
> 
> I disagree with  your assertions that we are not taught quite a few things you seem to believe we just know.  For example, we are taught what is beautiful and what is ugly. That is a entirely different thread though.  You keep forgetting the founders were humans like everyone else.  Just because they founded the country doesn't make them anymore correct about rights than a bum in the street.
> 
> Who told you that you were enlightened and I was prejudiced and close minded?  Why did you believe them?
Click to expand...


Somebody else tried to tell me that there was no logical argument that rights come from nature, I proved him wrong. Now you think I had to work really hard to come up with it. I didn't, and that is because I see logic for what it is, a tool. You seem to think it leads to answers that are definitive, all it really does is show how stupid it is to believe that logic is proof.

By the way, according to some scientists, beauty is actually a evolutionary concept, not something we are taught.

The Neuroscience of Beauty - Scientific American

Feel free to lay out your arguments that prove them wrong. I suspect you don't actually have any, but I am willing to be proven wrong.

The funny thing is that you never actually prove me wrong, you just continue to assert that you are right.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.




How so Penny?  We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist.  I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean of course that you think they are the same-----natural rights advocates and theorists would vehemently disagree with you. To them God is supernatural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Whatever.  As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept.    I don't think they are the same.  I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ahhh  those who disagree who are intellectually inferior and have the wrong emotional temperament ?  How truly humble of you..
> 
> check this out and tell me who the inferior intellects are.
> 
> Human Rights*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Click to expand...


That would be the people that keep posting links instead of arguments.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so Penny?  We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist.  I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.
Click to expand...


So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I couldn't mount a logical argument and why would I have to mount a logical argument in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember all those comments you made about natural rights being an oxymoron? Any argument against slavery based on anything other than economics, which you don't understand, or natural rights will end up being an oxymoron.
> 
> As for your questions, I said you couldn't mount a logical argument against it, and you have to because you claim to be smarter than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its funny to see you so confident you think you can tell me my argument can only be based on economics.  As for you mistaken belief I couldn't mount a logical argument against slavery please don't be naive.  I can quickly dispatch your deluded, naive, assertion and send it off to the corner wearing a dunce hat.
Click to expand...


Feel free to mount one then, just so I can prove to you that, ultimately, you have to rely on the concept of natural rights. 

Feel free to prove me wrong, in the meantime I will continue to mock you for the inherent cognitive dissonance/oxymoron of believing that slavery is wrong when people have no rights.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so Penny?  We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist.  I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?
Click to expand...


Not just that but also where do they exist?  I dont mind if they are invisible but the effects of those inalienable rights should be observable without man labeling them as such.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do.  Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists are wrong?
> 
> Do you have evidence of that, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are scientist humans?  Did the scientists label the behavior morals or did the animals?  If so please provide me some proof.
Click to expand...


I already did. If you think they are wrong feel free to pull up their observations and explain why they are wrong.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Whatever.  As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept.    I don't think they are the same.  I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahhh  those who disagree who are intellectually inferior and have the wrong emotional temperament ?  How truly humble of you..
> 
> check this out and tell me who the inferior intellects are.
> 
> Human Rights*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be the people that keep posting links instead of arguments.
Click to expand...


LMAO---God knows we don't want any addition verification.


----------



## Pennywise

Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are scientist humans?  Did the scientists label the behavior morals or did the animals?  If so please provide me some proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just where do scientists get their authority from anyway? Other scientists ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those other scientist humans?  Quantums problem is he cannot mount an argument so his tactic is to nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant.
Click to expand...


I have mounted arguments so successful that they have driven everyone but the trolls out of this thread.

By the way, there is only one of me.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?



No.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Seriously I try to use words as they are intended.  I leave selective defintiions up to those who have to do that to deny what to me is the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then taken in full context the Founding Fathers stated the rights come from God--not from mother nature
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true, they believed rights came from nature as _they understood it_. The mere fact that we now understand nature better than they did does not invalidate the theory of natural rights.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Because most of the Founders believed in a Creator God, therefore the source of nature or natural rights to them was God given.  But as I have repeatedly stated, and some not to be further mentioned have religiously ignored, most of the great philosophers who recognized and identified a concept of natural rights--the same philosophers the Founders themselves studied and quoted--did not attribute those rights to any form of deity but saw them as natural and universal truths and intended as the natural state of mankind.

Sadly for some here, if the Founders attributed anything to God in any way, it automatically becomes wrong, stupid, non existent, irrelevent, or contrived.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention.  The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are a human invention whether you call them natural or not.
> 
> Ask a conservative if the right to an abortion is a natural right.  99% will say no.  If there were such a thing as natural rights, however, abortion would clearly be one of them.
> 
> Conservatives want to declare some rights as natural rights, but also want to declare which rights are not.
> 
> That is invention.
Click to expand...


Do you have some examples?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so Penny?  We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist.  I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just that but also where do they exist?  I dont mind if they are invisible but the effects of those inalienable rights should be observable without man labeling them as such.
Click to expand...


It takes an enlightened sensibility to perceive that. Do you believe that people have the right to control you? Do you believe that you only exist due to the good graces of government?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


They had no right to be free? Then why free them?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just where do scientists get their authority from anyway? Other scientists ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those other scientist humans?  Quantums problem is he cannot mount an argument so his tactic is to nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have mounted arguments so successful that they have driven everyone but the trolls out of this thread.
> 
> By the way, there is only one of me.
Click to expand...


I couldnt help but to respond to this one.  You wore them out does not mean you mounted a successful argument. Your whole thing is drive people out instead of learning and teaching. You are a sad person.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we speaking religious good and evil or are we talking the behavior we label as good and bad?  IMO there is no religious good except that which is inspired by the belief in a higher being. That is a construct of man. IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know freedom scares you, you have said so many times. That does not make it evil, or even bad, it just means you need to evolve.
> 
> That said, I can guarantee you that there are evil people. Sooner or later you are going to come across an example, and realize that, despite your naive beliefs that it is just a behavior pattern that is contrary to the need to belong to a group. In fact, evil people actually prefer to be part of a group, it gives them more power. Jim Jones had no problems with belonging to a group, and he even capitalized on the desire that weak minded people have to belong to a group to spread his evil to others. Charles Manson is another example, as is McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that is true, which is actually debatable, despite your claim of superior knowledge, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I wanted a group of people to behave a certain way I would claim this way of living came from something more powerful and wise than myself.  I would appeal to the human need for security in the context of social living. I would condemn the bad behaviour that anyone could easily observe that destroys the dynamic I wanted to create.  Lastly I would make sure no one could ever prove that my source did not exist by making it invisible and unquestionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the last guy to start a brand new religion ignored that advice, isn't it? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be able to post where I said freedom scares me. I cant stand liars.  I see you are back to your old tricks of diversion in the face of being unable to mount an argument that lasts beyond my very next post refuting it.  You just earned a trip to the penalty box until you get your act together like the other adults on the thread.
Click to expand...


You should be able to post where I said you said it. If you can't, then I suggest you go back and actually address the arguments I made instead of trying to "(N)ibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant."


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had not right to be free? Then why free them?
Click to expand...


Did you see anything that said they had the right to be free?  Black people were not included in the all men are created equal thing our "Founders" put together.  That should give some who hold the founders in great esteem a little hint as to how wrong they were capable of being.

Black people were humans. Thats why they should have been free and not enslaved.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would hope that everyone else in the world agree with you? Why would they do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The UN certainly wants that.
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight, the UN, which says that "(R)ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and  inalienable  rights of all members of the human family is the foundation  of freedom,  justice and peace in the world," agrees with Asclepias, who says that inalienable rights is an oxymoron? 

Do you ever wonder why people think you say really stupid things? This is why we think that.


----------



## Pennywise

If someone has you chained to a basement wall, feeding you dog food and giving you a coffee can to shit in, does that mean you no longer have the right to be free?


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know freedom scares you, you have said so many times. That does not make it evil, or even bad, it just means you need to evolve.
> 
> That said, I can guarantee you that there are evil people. Sooner or later you are going to come across an example, and realize that, despite your naive beliefs that it is just a behavior pattern that is contrary to the need to belong to a group. In fact, evil people actually prefer to be part of a group, it gives them more power. Jim Jones had no problems with belonging to a group, and he even capitalized on the desire that weak minded people have to belong to a group to spread his evil to others. Charles Manson is another example, as is McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that is true, which is actually debatable, despite your claim of superior knowledge, it is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the last guy to start a brand new religion ignored that advice, isn't it? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to post where I said freedom scares me. I cant stand liars.  I see you are back to your old tricks of diversion in the face of being unable to mount an argument that lasts beyond my very next post refuting it.  You just earned a trip to the penalty box until you get your act together like the other adults on the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be able to post where I said you said it. If you can't, then I suggest you go back and actually address the arguments I made instead of trying to "(N)ibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant."
Click to expand...


Its impossible you are this stupid. It was right there above your post. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> Yes, I know freedom scares you, *you have said so many times*.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> then taken in full context the Founding Fathers stated the rights come from God--not from mother nature
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, they believed rights came from nature as _they understood it_. The mere fact that we now understand nature better than they did does not invalidate the theory of natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and they understood GOD to be the creator of everything including nature.
Click to expand...


I think I just said that. The part you seem to have trouble grasping is that they believed that Providence worked by laying out the natural laws, not by intervening on a daily basis.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would hope that everyone else in the world agree with you? Why would they do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN certainly wants that.
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those guys are obviously dummies.  They couldn't possibly count.
Click to expand...


I suspect you were trying to mock me with that comment. Unfortunately, for you, you didn't actually read the link and see that they say that rights are inalienable, and actually inherent in everyone. That, in case you have trouble following English, means they agree with me, not you.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> If someone has you chained to a basement wall, feeding you dog food and giving you a coffee can to shit in, does that mean you no longer have the right to be free?



You have the right to be free. Its pretty useless at that point but yes you have it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, they believed rights came from nature as _they understood it_. The mere fact that we now understand nature better than they did does not invalidate the theory of natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and they understood GOD to be the creator of everything including nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats pretty inconvenient for his argument.
Click to expand...


Only if you are a small minded bigot who believes that belief in God means that everything else a person believes is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so Penny?  We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist.  I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?
Click to expand...


That is pretty much all he has.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has you chained to a basement wall, feeding you dog food and giving you a coffee can to shit in, does that mean you no longer have the right to be free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be free. Its pretty useless at that point but yes you have it.
Click to expand...


Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> and they understood GOD to be the creator of everything including nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty inconvenient for his argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you are a small minded bigot who believes that belief in God means that everything else a person believes is wrong.
Click to expand...


ahh  so there is a God----he just didn't create Natural rights ?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just that but also where do they exist?  I dont mind if they are invisible but the effects of those inalienable rights should be observable without man labeling them as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes an enlightened sensibility to perceive that. Do you believe that people have the right to control you? Do you believe that you only exist due to the good graces of government?
Click to expand...


Some people indeed have the right to control me in certain situations. The police are a good example. 

No i exist because my parents created me. I would exist with or without a government.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has you chained to a basement wall, feeding you dog food and giving you a coffee can to shit in, does that mean you no longer have the right to be free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be free. Its pretty useless at that point but yes you have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?
Click to expand...


Law of the jungle-----they are free to do it and the brethren are free to fight back. Humans are desperately looking to get out of the jungle by saying we are special and have special rights.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has you chained to a basement wall, feeding you dog food and giving you a coffee can to shit in, does that mean you no longer have the right to be free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be free. Its pretty useless at that point but yes you have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?
Click to expand...


No they dont have the right unless they created rights and specified they had them.  Are you asking if they have the ability or are you saying is it okay?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so Penny?  We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist.  I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just that but also where do they exist?  I dont mind if they are invisible but the effects of those inalienable rights should be observable without man labeling them as such.
Click to expand...


They are observable, all you have to do is look in the right place.


----------



## Pennywise

dilloduck said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be free. Its pretty useless at that point but yes you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Law of the jungle-----they are free to do it and the brethren are free to fight back. Humans are desperately looking to get out of the jungle by saying we are special and have special rights.
Click to expand...


So as long as someone is bigger or stronger or smarter, they have the right to take what is yours? They have the right to control your life? Once they beat you down, and you can no longer fight, your rights cease to exist?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those other scientist humans?  Quantums problem is he cannot mount an argument so his tactic is to nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have mounted arguments so successful that they have driven everyone but the trolls out of this thread.
> 
> By the way, there is only one of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldnt help but to respond to this one.  You wore them out does not mean you mounted a successful argument. Your whole thing is drive people out instead of learning and teaching. You are a sad person.
Click to expand...


Which explains why you never actually won any of those debates with me about things I don't care about. It is, however, completely irrelevant to the fact that not a single person in this thread has actually mounted a real argument that rights come from any where but nature. That, in case you kissed it, includes you. Like everyone else, you think the mere fact that you can say something makes it true, and then refuse to actually argue your position by erroneously claiming that you can't prove a negative, even though I am actually asking you to prove a positive.

You also, conveniently, have a computer that never shows you anything that actually might serve to change your closed mind.


----------



## Foxfyre

Some notable quotations by Thomas Jefferson:

"Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441 

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134 

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376 

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. 

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48​
James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights explaining that these were necessary to illustrate and protect the unalienable rights of the the people.

*James Madison Speech at the Virginia Convention*
 Date: December 2, 1829
It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. 


*Albert Gallatin letter to Alexander Addison*
 Date: October 7, 1789
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals..._t establishes some rights of the individual as  unalienable  and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. 

*John Adams Thoughts on Government*
 Date: 1776
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. 

*William Paterson: Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance*
 Date: 1795
It is evident that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. 

*Alexander Hamilton The Farmer Refuted*
 Date: February 23, 1775
The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice. 

*George Washington letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island*
 Date: August 17, 1790
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. 

*James Wilson Lectures on Law*
 Date: 1791
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind. 

Jefferson's line "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as examples of unalienable rights was almost certainly adapated from the Blackstone Law Commentaries which every educated citizen was acquainted in revolutionary times and which continues to this day to be present in every comprehensive law library in the land._


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Law of the jungle-----they are free to do it and the brethren are free to fight back. Humans are desperately looking to get out of the jungle by saying we are special and have special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as long as someone is bigger or stronger or smarter, they have the right to take what is yours? They have the right to control your life? Once they beat you down, and you can no longer fight, your rights cease to exist?
Click to expand...


Until there is someone who can protect you---it can and does happen. It's reality.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Law of the jungle-----they are free to do it and the brethren are free to fight back. Humans are desperately looking to get out of the jungle by saying we are special and have special rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as long as someone is bigger or stronger or smarter, they have the right to take what is yours? They have the right to control your life? Once they beat you down, and you can no longer fight, your rights cease to exist?
Click to expand...


They dont have the right until they create the rights and assign them. They have the ability to do it but not the right.  

Your rights never existed unless they were specified.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be free. Its pretty useless at that point but yes you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they dont have the right unless they created rights and specified they had them.  Are you asking if they have the ability or are you saying is it okay?
Click to expand...


We all have the ability in one way or another to control other people. All of us have the capability to murder someone.

Is it okay, to enslave someone without having a government recognize inalienable right?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had not right to be free? Then why free them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see anything that said they had the right to be free?  Black people were not included in the all men are created equal thing our "Founders" put together.  That should give some who hold the founders in great esteem a little hint as to how wrong they were capable of being.
> 
> Black people were humans. Thats why they should have been free and not enslaved.
Click to expand...


So what if they were human? According to you, that is irrelevant, because humans do not have rights.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law of the jungle-----they are free to do it and the brethren are free to fight back. Humans are desperately looking to get out of the jungle by saying we are special and have special rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as someone is bigger or stronger or smarter, they have the right to take what is yours? They have the right to control your life? Once they beat you down, and you can no longer fight, your rights cease to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They dont have the right until they create the rights and assign them.* They have the ability to do it but not the right.
> 
> Your rights never existed unless they were specified.
Click to expand...


So my right to live did not exist until government assigned me that right?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Let's say this happens on an island of isolated peoples who have never heard of 'inalienable rights'? A tribe of backwoods inbred fiends. Do they have the right to control and enslave their brethren, just because they feel like it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they dont have the right unless they created rights and specified they had them.  Are you asking if they have the ability or are you saying is it okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have the ability in one way or another to control other people. All of us have the capability to murder someone.
> 
> Is it okay, to enslave someone without having a government recognize inalienable right?
Click to expand...


I dont think its ok but other people think it is.  We have examples throughout history showing this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to post where I said freedom scares me. I cant stand liars.  I see you are back to your old tricks of diversion in the face of being unable to mount an argument that lasts beyond my very next post refuting it.  You just earned a trip to the penalty box until you get your act together like the other adults on the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to post where I said you said it. If you can't, then I suggest you go back and actually address the arguments I made instead of trying to "(N)ibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its impossible you are this stupid. It was right there above your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know freedom scares you, *you have said so many times*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes, you said it when you claimed that people are afraid of things that go against the need to be part of a group, and when you insisted that rights did not come from nature. That still doesn't actually mean you said those exact words, does it? And it still fails to actually address the arguments a made because you prefer to get lost in irrelevant details in an attempt to prove how clever you are.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long as someone is bigger or stronger or smarter, they have the right to take what is yours? They have the right to control your life? Once they beat you down, and you can no longer fight, your rights cease to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They dont have the right until they create the rights and assign them.* They have the ability to do it but not the right.
> 
> Your rights never existed unless they were specified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my right to live did not exist until government assigned me that right?
Click to expand...


Correct.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to post where I said you said it. If you can't, then I suggest you go back and actually address the arguments I made instead of trying to "(N)ibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its impossible you are this stupid. It was right there above your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know freedom scares you, *you have said so many times*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you said it when you claimed that people are afraid of things that go against the need to be part of a group, and when you insisted that rights did not come from nature. That still doesn't actually mean you said those exact words, does it? And it still fails to actually address the arguments a made because you prefer to get lost in irrelevant details in an attempt to prove how clever you are.
Click to expand...


Well if you want to converse with me you will stick to what I said and not what you assumed. If you need clarification ask or I simply will not address you unless I feel like it. I cant stand liars.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they dont have the right unless they created rights and specified they had them.  Are you asking if they have the ability or are you saying is it okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all have the ability in one way or another to control other people. All of us have the capability to murder someone.
> 
> Is it okay, to enslave someone without having a government recognize inalienable right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont think its ok but other people think it is.  We have examples throughout history showing this.
Click to expand...


Of course, history is rampant with slavery. So inalienable rights are subject to majority rule?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty inconvenient for his argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a small minded bigot who believes that belief in God means that everything else a person believes is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ahh  so there is a God----he just didn't create Natural rights ?
Click to expand...


I actually addressed the issue earlier in the thread. If you really care to know what I said feel free to go look.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just that but also where do they exist?  I dont mind if they are invisible but the effects of those inalienable rights should be observable without man labeling them as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes an enlightened sensibility to perceive that. Do you believe that people have the right to control you? Do you believe that you only exist due to the good graces of government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people indeed have the right to control me in certain situations. The police are a good example.
> 
> No i exist because my parents created me. I would exist with or without a government.
Click to expand...


They have the power, not the right. You have the legal right to ignore them.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They dont have the right until they create the rights and assign them.* They have the ability to do it but not the right.
> 
> Your rights never existed unless they were specified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my right to live did not exist until government assigned me that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
Click to expand...


Wow. That's all I got based on that response.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have the ability in one way or another to control other people. All of us have the capability to murder someone.
> 
> Is it okay, to enslave someone without having a government recognize inalienable right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think its ok but other people think it is.  We have examples throughout history showing this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, history is rampant with slavery. So inalienable rights are subject to majority rule?
Click to expand...


Pretty much all rights are subject to majority rule.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They dont have the right until they create the rights and assign them.* They have the ability to do it but not the right.
> 
> Your rights never existed unless they were specified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my right to live did not exist until government assigned me that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
Click to expand...


Which government agency is in charge of assigning people that right? How do they deal with people who are born to parents who refuse to report the birth to the government?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes an enlightened sensibility to perceive that. Do you believe that people have the right to control you? Do you believe that you only exist due to the good graces of government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people indeed have the right to control me in certain situations. The police are a good example.
> 
> No i exist because my parents created me. I would exist with or without a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the power, not the right. You have the legal right to ignore them.
Click to expand...


Police have legal rights---resist them and you may not have the legal rights you think you have,


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its impossible you are this stupid. It was right there above your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you said it when you claimed that people are afraid of things that go against the need to be part of a group, and when you insisted that rights did not come from nature. That still doesn't actually mean you said those exact words, does it? And it still fails to actually address the arguments a made because you prefer to get lost in irrelevant details in an attempt to prove how clever you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want to converse with me you will stick to what I said and not what you assumed. If you need clarification ask or I simply will not address you unless I feel like it. I cant stand liars.
Click to expand...


Are you actually going to address the arguments I made that proved you wrong, or are you going to continue to pretend I am the one that "nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant?"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people indeed have the right to control me in certain situations. The police are a good example.
> 
> No i exist because my parents created me. I would exist with or without a government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have the power, not the right. You have the legal right to ignore them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police have legal rights---resist them and you may not have the legal rights you think you have,
Click to expand...


Human beings and legal persons have legal rights, agents of the government have powers.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think its ok but other people think it is.  We have examples throughout history showing this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, history is rampant with slavery. So inalienable rights are subject to majority rule?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
Click to expand...


So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked? 

I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you said it when you claimed that people are afraid of things that go against the need to be part of a group, and when you insisted that rights did not come from nature. That still doesn't actually mean you said those exact words, does it? And it still fails to actually address the arguments a made because you prefer to get lost in irrelevant details in an attempt to prove how clever you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want to converse with me you will stick to what I said and not what you assumed. If you need clarification ask or I simply will not address you unless I feel like it. I cant stand liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually going to address the arguments I made that proved you wrong, or are you going to continue to pretend I am the one that "nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant?"
Click to expand...


Either you stop being a liar and apologize for lying or go kick rocks. Your arguments have no merit at all simply because you are not a very wholesome person. I could care less what you want to discuss when you are a liar.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, history is rampant with slavery. So inalienable rights are subject to majority rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
Click to expand...


Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. What good does that do him ?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, history is rampant with slavery. So inalienable rights are subject to majority rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
Click to expand...


The philosophy of liberty is irrelevant at that point. Philosophies are not going to change the fact he has no liberty.  Even if in this case he had rights what good are they?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The philosophy of liberty is irrelevant at that point. Philosophies are not going to change the fact he has no liberty.  *Even if in this case he had rights what good are they*?
Click to expand...


If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.

Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?


----------



## Pennywise

dilloduck said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. *What good does that do him ?*
Click to expand...


Ask an abused child or woman.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. *What good does that do him ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask an abused child or woman.
Click to expand...


They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?


----------



## Pennywise

dilloduck said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. *What good does that do him ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask an abused child or woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?
Click to expand...


Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophy of liberty is irrelevant at that point. Philosophies are not going to change the fact he has no liberty.  *Even if in this case he had rights what good are they*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.
> 
> Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?
Click to expand...


That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave.  However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.

My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves.  Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion.  I have no qualms with that.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophy of liberty is irrelevant at that point. Philosophies are not going to change the fact he has no liberty.  *Even if in this case he had rights what good are they*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.
> 
> Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave.  However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.
> 
> My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves.  Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion.  I have no qualms with that.
Click to expand...


So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask an abused child or woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
Click to expand...


This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.
> 
> Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave.  However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.
> 
> My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves.  Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion.  I have no qualms with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?
Click to expand...


Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
Click to expand...


Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave.  However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.
> 
> My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves.  Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion.  I have no qualms with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.
Click to expand...


So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
Click to expand...


All rights are subject to those in power. They made up the rights in the first place.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
Click to expand...


Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All rights are subject to those in power. *They made up the rights in the first place.*
Click to expand...


Not in America. They recognized the truth of man's rights.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
Click to expand...


You know that.  I know that.  We both understand the concept of the Constitution that it is the people who institute government for the purpose of securing our unalienable rights--who give government its power--rather than the other way around.  I fear we have too many in public education that cannot wrap their minds around that concept and no longer teach it, which is probably why some can't get past the idea of a 'king' or other authority that orders the society we will have.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure they did. Its a very attractive belief and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.


----------



## Pennywise

dilloduck said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.
Click to expand...


Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All rights are subject to those in power. *They made up the rights in the first place.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in America. They recognized the truth of man's rights.
Click to expand...


Who are they?  Was it the person working at the local pub or the people in power?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they did.* Its a very attractive belief* and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.
Click to expand...


No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.
Click to expand...


Well personally I don't particularly admire the 3/5ths thingy.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that.  I know that.  We both understand the concept of the Constitution that it is the people who institute government for the purpose of securing our unalienable rights--who give government its power--rather than the other way around.  I fear we have too many in public education that cannot wrap their minds around that concept and no longer teach it, which is probably why some can't get past the idea of a 'king' or other authority that orders the society we will have.
Click to expand...


Yes ---people set up the government to protect certain specified behaviors and history has shown us that those in power CONTINUE to abuse them. Recognizing rights does nothing as far as protecting them.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they did.* Its a very attractive belief* and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.
Click to expand...


You should be able to prove a truth.  I have a problem with calling it a truth unless I can see evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want to converse with me you will stick to what I said and not what you assumed. If you need clarification ask or I simply will not address you unless I feel like it. I cant stand liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually going to address the arguments I made that proved you wrong, or are you going to continue to pretend I am the one that "nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you stop being a liar and apologize for lying or go kick rocks. Your arguments have no merit at all simply because you are not a very wholesome person. I could care less what you want to discuss when you are a liar.
Click to expand...


You have opted to keep focusing on irrelevant details and claim victory because you never actually read any arguments that disprove your  position, why am I not surprised?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. What good does that do him ?
Click to expand...


If he has a right to be free I can come by and kill the people that are enslaving him in order to set him free, if he doesn't, I have to walk away.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well personally I don't particularly admire the 3/5ths thingy.
Click to expand...


The 3/5ths thingy was put in to prevent slave holders from increasing the census too much, and to get less than honorable states to join the Union. It was a temporary measure that was righted in time. The Constitution allowed for that to be changed. Think about it, my friend.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pennywise said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask an abused child or woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
Click to expand...


It also allows for the woman to defend herself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophy of liberty is irrelevant at that point. Philosophies are not going to change the fact he has no liberty.  *Even if in this case he had rights what good are they*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.
> 
> Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave.  However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.
> 
> My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves.  Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion.  I have no qualms with that.
Click to expand...


My rights are not subject to your suggestions. Funny thing, neither were your forefathers.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?
> 
> I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. What good does that do him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he has a right to be free I can come by and kill the people that are enslaving him in order to set him free, if he doesn't, I have to walk away.
Click to expand...


No you don't---you are perfectly free to free him. There are laws against slavery


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well personally I don't particularly admire the 3/5ths thingy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 3/5ths thingy was put in to prevent slave holders from increasing the census too much, and to get less than honorable states to join the Union. It was a temporary measure that was righted in time. The Constitution allowed for that to be changed. Think about it, my friend.
Click to expand...


I have and it doesnt make sense.  Why didnt they do away with slavery at the time of the constitution?  If the rights are so inalienable why are you bargaining with less than honorable states?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they did.* Its a very attractive belief* and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be able to prove a truth.  I have a problem with calling it a truth unless I can see evidence.
Click to expand...


You can never see the evidence if you do not recognize the creator as an entity. Call it God or Nature. You cannot consider such heady issues without philosophy as a major contributing element.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also allows for the woman to defend herself.
Click to expand...


LOL  I bet any woman defends herself whether she has the right to or not.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. What good does that do him ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he has a right to be free I can come by and kill the people that are enslaving him in order to set him free, if he doesn't, I have to walk away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't---you are perfectly free to free him. There are laws against slavery
Click to expand...


Better yet you can come by and enslave the enslaver thereby freeing the slave.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to prove a truth.  I have a problem with calling it a truth unless I can see evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can never see the evidence if you do not recognize the creator as an entity. Call it God or Nature. You cannot consider such heady issues without philosophy as a major contributing element.
Click to expand...


Who made up philosophy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.
Click to expand...


As I pointed out the Asclepias earlier, we protect rights because they have value, not the other way around.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well personally I don't particularly admire the 3/5ths thingy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 3/5ths thingy was put in to prevent slave holders from increasing the census too much, and to get less than honorable states to join the Union. It was a temporary measure that was righted in time. The Constitution allowed for that to be changed. Think about it, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have and it doesnt make sense.  Why didnt they do away with slavery at the time of the constitution?  If the rights are so inalienable why are you bargaining with less than honorable states?
Click to expand...


Because the Union was too fragile. That's the truth. Sometimes you must take a half measure and eat some crow in the short term. The wrongs were righted.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to prove a truth.  I have a problem with calling it a truth unless I can see evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can never see the evidence if you do not recognize the creator as an entity. Call it God or Nature. You cannot consider such heady issues without philosophy as a major contributing element.
Click to expand...


We as a society simple decide right and wrong and then we act accordingly. Those who  do wrong get punished----why---because society has an agreement.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well personally I don't particularly admire the 3/5ths thingy.
Click to expand...


Is that because you think it is racist, or because you actually understand it and have a real problem with it?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to prove a truth.  I have a problem with calling it a truth unless I can see evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can never see the evidence if you do not recognize the creator as an entity. Call it God or Nature. You cannot consider such heady issues without philosophy as a major contributing element.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who made up philosophy?
Click to expand...


No one, it is a process of man's understanding of man. It has evolved over millenia, like language.


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You vastly underestimate the degree that social pressure has on people. Social pressure teaches us pretty, ugly, good ,bad etc etc etc. Without adult humans to teach us, we are like animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not underestimated social pressure at all.  But I also know that the human spirit is capable of awareness, understanding, and conceptual perceptions that nobody has to teach it.  Both my husband and I chose to be something other than what our parents intended for us or that they ever understood.   I have observed it in my own children.  Neither chose directions for their lives that my husband or I would have chosen for them or that we guided them into.  Nor did anybody else.  They both, however, had their own inate creativity, abilities, desires, and interests.   To recognize that this exists in no way negates or dismisses that cultural conditioning is also a factor in who or what we are.
> 
> Each human being is as individual as a snowflake with or without somebody else involving themselves in how somebody else chooses or develops.
> 
> I would think it most unfortunate if you see youself as being purely what others have made of you.  How sad would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of you is your own original design?  While you are at it please supply me with a completely original thought.
Click to expand...

Her finger print is of her own original design, and this for just one answer...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure they did.* Its a very attractive belief* and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should be able to prove a truth.  I have a problem with calling it a truth unless I can see evidence.
Click to expand...


Yet you continue to insist that government is the source of rights without any evidence.

Interesting.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. What good does that do him ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he has a right to be free I can come by and kill the people that are enslaving him in order to set him free, if he doesn't, I have to walk away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't---you are perfectly free to free him. There are laws against slavery
Click to expand...


Not on the hypothetical island we are talking about.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 3/5ths thingy was put in to prevent slave holders from increasing the census too much, and to get less than honorable states to join the Union. It was a temporary measure that was righted in time. The Constitution allowed for that to be changed. Think about it, my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have and it doesnt make sense.  Why didnt they do away with slavery at the time of the constitution?  If the rights are so inalienable why are you bargaining with less than honorable states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Union was too fragile. That's the truth. Sometimes you must take a half measure and eat some crow in the short term. The wrongs were righted.
Click to expand...


So you go against what the creator says is right for the short term instead of going forth and dealing with the fallout?  Doesn't sound like a whole lot of faith in that creator concept to me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also allows for the woman to defend herself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL  I bet any woman defends herself whether she has the right to or not.
Click to expand...


Are you telling me that every thing the government ever told me about victims of abuse is a lie?


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not underestimated social pressure at all.  But I also know that the human spirit is capable of awareness, understanding, and conceptual perceptions that nobody has to teach it.  Both my husband and I chose to be something other than what our parents intended for us or that they ever understood.   I have observed it in my own children.  Neither chose directions for their lives that my husband or I would have chosen for them or that we guided them into.  Nor did anybody else.  They both, however, had their own inate creativity, abilities, desires, and interests.   To recognize that this exists in no way negates or dismisses that cultural conditioning is also a factor in who or what we are.
> 
> Each human being is as individual as a snowflake with or without somebody else involving themselves in how somebody else chooses or develops.
> 
> I would think it most unfortunate if you see youself as being purely what others have made of you.  How sad would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of you is your own original design?  While you are at it please supply me with a completely original thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her finger print is of her own original design, and this for just one answer...
Click to expand...


She designed her finger print?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have and it doesnt make sense.  Why didnt they do away with slavery at the time of the constitution?  If the rights are so inalienable why are you bargaining with less than honorable states?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Union was too fragile. That's the truth. Sometimes you must take a half measure and eat some crow in the short term. The wrongs were righted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you go against what the creator says is right for the short term instead of going forth and dealing with the fallout?  Doesn't sound like a whole lot of faith in that creator concept to me.
Click to expand...


Without that the United States would not have come to be. We all make choices, sometimes they are the wrong ones. Would you prefer living in Somalia?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he has a right to be free I can come by and kill the people that are enslaving him in order to set him free, if he doesn't, I have to walk away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't---you are perfectly free to free him. There are laws against slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not on the hypothetical island we are talking about.
Click to expand...


oh damn----I didn't see the hypothetical rule book you wrote.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't---you are perfectly free to free him. There are laws against slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the hypothetical island we are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh damn----I didn't see the hypothetical rule book you wrote.
Click to expand...


It wasn't my hypothesis, I just played by the rules set up by Asclepias.


----------



## Pennywise

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the hypothetical island we are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh damn----I didn't see the hypothetical rule book you wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't my hypothesis, I just played by the rules set up by Asclepias.
Click to expand...


Actually the island was my contribution.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Union was too fragile. That's the truth. Sometimes you must take a half measure and eat some crow in the short term. The wrongs were righted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you go against what the creator says is right for the short term instead of going forth and dealing with the fallout?  Doesn't sound like a whole lot of faith in that creator concept to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without that the United States would not have come to be. We all make choices, sometimes they are the wrong ones. Would you prefer living in Somalia?
Click to expand...


Who told you the US would not have come to be?  I would think that someone claiming a creator gave us inalienable rights would trust that everything would work out as it was meant to be if their actions matched their words.  What does living in Somalia have to do with anything?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh damn----I didn't see the hypothetical rule book you wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't my hypothesis, I just played by the rules set up by Asclepias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the island was my contribution.
Click to expand...


Quantum enjoys lying on me.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh damn----I didn't see the hypothetical rule book you wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't my hypothesis, I just played by the rules set up by Asclepias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the island was my contribution.
Click to expand...


 I think we should all get drunk and write a declaration of something.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't---you are perfectly free to free him. There are laws against slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the hypothetical island we are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh damn----I didn't see the hypothetical rule book you wrote.
Click to expand...


No worries. You are still able to come by and enslave the guy keeping the slave according to the rule book.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can never see the evidence if you do not recognize the creator as an entity. Call it God or Nature. You cannot consider such heady issues without philosophy as a major contributing element.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who made up philosophy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one, it is a process of man's understanding of man. It has evolved over millenia, like language.
Click to expand...


No one?  How did it come to be part of human evolution?  Where did we pick it up from?


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was pointed out earlier.  Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All rights are subject to those in power. They made up the rights in the first place.
Click to expand...

So sad you are, that you keep on and on with the same lines in trying to make something else out of something we already know to be truth in this universe and within this nation, so what is your end game or motive here ? Are you one of those whom want to upset the apple cart so much so in which harbors the things in which you don't like within this nation, and this because of what reasoning in which you have to do so or that you are trying to do so with ?

I see people like you as a challenger to the constitution, the republic, and it's centuries old belief systems that have been sworn in over time by our leaders to protect, and so it is that you are among those whom want to fundamentally change this republic, and then turn it into something that you desire more so within your ways of thinking, and this along with those who are like you and think like you? So it is that you are laying this out on the line for all to see within your constant positions taken on this subject, and if so that is good for all to see and understand now, because it needs to be known by all as to what is going down in this nation today. 

There are many like you, and it is all written about in the word, so go and explain that one if you dare to read about yourself in the word in which describes you and/or rather your character to a T.

Explain how it is that thousands of years ago, you were known about, and you were written about in a book that has been spot on till this very day about all of these things that are spoken of.


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.
> 
> This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All rights are subject to those in power. They made up the rights in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So sad you are, that you keep on and on with the same lines in trying to make something else out of something we already know to be truth in this universe and within this nation, so what is your end game or motive here ? Are you one of those whom want to upset the apple cart so much so in which harbors the things in which you don't like within this nation, and this because of what reasoning in which you have to do so or that you are trying to do so with ?
> 
> I see people like you as a challenger to the constitution, the republic, and it's centuries old belief systems that have been sworn in over time by our leaders to protect, and so it is that you are among those whom want to fundamentally change this republic, and then turn it into something that you desire more so within your ways of thinking, and this along with those who are like you and think like you? So it is that you are laying this out on the line for all to see within your constant positions taken on this subject, and if so that is good for all to see and understand now, because it needs to be known by all as to what is going down in this nation today.
> 
> There are many like you, and it is all written about in the word, so go and explain that one if you dare to read about yourself in the word in which describes you and/or rather your character to a T.
> 
> Explain how it is that thousands of years ago, you were known about, and you were written about in a book that has been spot on till this very day about all of these things that are spoken of.
Click to expand...


When logic, reason, and all else fails invoke the Bible.  I'm pretty sure there were other people that thought like I did back when they wrote about God giving us this or that. That would explain to me how they foresaw the possibility of people that think like me.  What would have impressed me even more is if they specifically named me instead of allowing you to judge patterns in white noise and claiming its prophesy.



> Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
> 
> If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.



Is this the same God that said I have a right to liberty?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made up philosophy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one, it is a process of man's understanding of man. It has evolved over millenia, like language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one?  How did it come to be part of human evolution?  Where did we pick it up from?
Click to expand...


It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.

Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't my hypothesis, I just played by the rules set up by Asclepias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the island was my contribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we should all get drunk and write a declaration of something.
Click to expand...


That's not what you've been doing?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one, it is a process of man's understanding of man. It has evolved over millenia, like language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one?  How did it come to be part of human evolution?  Where did we pick it up from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.
> 
> Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.
Click to expand...


Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one?  How did it come to be part of human evolution?  Where did we pick it up from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.
> 
> Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.
Click to expand...


I didn't mention religion.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.
> 
> Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention religion.
Click to expand...


Yeah you did indirectly.  You said spiritual.  Did you mean something else?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you did indirectly.  You said spirituality.  Did you mean something else?
Click to expand...


Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.

When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you did indirectly.  You said spirituality.  Did you mean something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.
> 
> When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.
Click to expand...


OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the island was my contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should all get drunk and write a declaration of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what you've been doing?
Click to expand...


har har Mr Black    care to play along ?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you did indirectly.  You said spirituality.  Did you mean something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.
> 
> When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?
Click to expand...


It depends on one's personal philosophy. Some believe it is innate to an evolved brain, some believe it is divine (otherworldly).


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.
> 
> When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on one's personal philosophy. Some believe it is innate to an evolved brain, some believe it is divine (otherworldly).
Click to expand...


Which is your personal philosophy?


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on one's personal philosophy. Some believe it is innate to an evolved brain, some believe it is divine (otherworldly).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is your personal philosophy?
Click to expand...


I am uncertain. I really am what is considered 'a seeker'. I ruminate over it and always wonder. The only thing I know for certain is I am no better or worse than you, expect as can be measured by my deeds.


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on one's personal philosophy. Some believe it is innate to an evolved brain, some believe it is divine (otherworldly).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your personal philosophy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am uncertain. I really am what is considered 'a seeker'. I ruminate over it and always wonder. The only thing I know for certain is I am no better or worse than you, expect as can be measured by my deeds.
Click to expand...


That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.  I got you mixed up with Beagle there for a minute.


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your personal philosophy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am uncertain. I really am what is considered 'a seeker'. I ruminate over it and always wonder. The only thing I know for certain is I am no better or worse than you, expect as can be measured by my deeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.
Click to expand...


The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?

I need a whiskey.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am uncertain. I really am what is considered 'a seeker'. I ruminate over it and always wonder. The only thing I know for certain is I am no better or worse than you, expect as can be measured by my deeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
Click to expand...


  a very absurd place indeed


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am uncertain. I really am what is considered 'a seeker'. I ruminate over it and always wonder. The only thing I know for certain is I am no better or worse than you, expect as can be measured by my deeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
Click to expand...


This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
Click to expand...


security thoughts---zillions of them


----------



## Pennywise

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
Click to expand...


Possibly. Also possible God is real and one needs to be fully engaged and open to accept the truth. I've seen enough to understand that there are things that defy explanations.

But yes, we look for answers when often there are no definable ones as we understand. So then some say the process of wondering is wasteful, energy focused on folly and fantasy, etc. That I disagree with 100%, because I truly believe that the journey toward understanding makes us better people because we realize that those with whom we share the earth have rights too, and maybe we dig deep down to our spirit and forgive them when they annoy us or trespass on us. I often fail at that goal.


----------



## dilloduck

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly. Also possible God is real and one needs to be fully engaged and open to accept the truth. I've seen enough to understand that there are things that defy explanations.
> 
> But yes, we look for answers when often there are no definable ones as we understand. So then some say the process of wondering is wasteful, energy focused on folly and fantasy, etc. That I disagree with 100%, because I truly believe that the journey toward understanding makes us better people because we realize that those with whom we share the earth have rights too, and maybe we dig deep down to our spirit and forgive them when they annoy us or trespass on us. I often fail at that goal.
Click to expand...


Nothing wrong at all with going the next mile to help someone---


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pennywise said:


> Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.



List the natural rights.


----------



## NYcarbineer

For many centuries in Europe the most important natural, aka God given, right was the divine right of the king.

All the same sort of arguments for the legitimacy of that right were made that were later made to defend the natural rights espoused by those who contested the kings' divine rights.

Was divine right an invented right?  Or were the so-called natural rights of the people invented to displace divine right by those who simply wanted to take the king's power away from him and make it their own?


----------



## Asclepias

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly. Also possible God is real and one needs to be fully engaged and open to accept the truth. I've seen enough to understand that there are things that defy explanations.
> 
> But yes, we look for answers when often there are no definable ones as we understand. So then some say the process of wondering is wasteful, energy focused on folly and fantasy, etc. That I disagree with 100%, because I truly believe that the journey toward understanding makes us better people because we realize that those with whom we share the earth have rights too, and maybe we dig deep down to our spirit and forgive them when they annoy us or trespass on us. I often fail at that goal.
Click to expand...


I'm comfortable with possibly being wrong.  I would love nothing better than to be wrong about this.  I know for certain I don't have all the answers and I like exploring the possibilities that other truths are the real path.  Fear is the root of all "evil" we tend to get afraid when someone disrupts our reality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pennywise said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh damn----I didn't see the hypothetical rule book you wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't my hypothesis, I just played by the rules set up by Asclepias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the island was my contribution.
Click to expand...


The guy not having any rights because the island government didn't give them to him wasn't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who made up philosophy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one, it is a process of man's understanding of man. It has evolved over millenia, like language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one?  How did it come to be part of human evolution?  Where did we pick it up from?
Click to expand...


Where did you pick up the ability to walk upright? To see?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one?  How did it come to be part of human evolution?  Where did we pick it up from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.
> 
> Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.
Click to expand...


And those concepts include right and wrong, and even rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pennywise said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.
> 
> Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention religion.
Click to expand...


All Asclepias has is hatred of religion, which is why he cannot think beyond those terms.


----------



## Asclepias

NYcarbineer said:


> For many centuries in Europe the most important natural, aka God given, right was the divine right of the king.
> 
> All the same sort of arguments for the legitimacy of that right were made that were later made to defend the natural rights espoused by those who contested the kings' divine rights.
> 
> Was divine right an invented right?  Or were the so-called natural rights of the people invented to displace divine right by those who simply wanted to take the king's power away from him and make it their own?



Let me guess....the kings were in power?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
Click to expand...


Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown? What possible justification can you use to defend that absurd idea? Every iota of evidence from science  and history contradicts the idea that humans are afraid of what they don't know. If we were really the cowards you are we wouldn't be where we are now, we would either be extinct, or still living on the plains of Africa hiding from all the dangers in the world.

No wonder you can't see the rights that are right in front of your face, you are hiding under the bed. Want to tell me how you aren't afraid of freedom again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> security thoughts---zillions of them
Click to expand...


Only the insecure need security thoughts, the real humans only need their wits.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> For many centuries in Europe the most important natural, aka God given, right was the divine right of the king.
> 
> All the same sort of arguments for the legitimacy of that right were made that were later made to defend the natural rights espoused by those who contested the kings' divine rights.
> 
> Was divine right an invented right?  Or were the so-called natural rights of the people invented to displace divine right by those who simply wanted to take the king's power away from him and make it their own?



Do you even know what the divine right of kings means, or do you just throw the term around to sound pretentious?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> security thoughts---zillions of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the insecure need security thoughts, the real humans only need their wits.
Click to expand...


true----that's why we have zillions---we have zillions of witless people.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. Also possible God is real and one needs to be fully engaged and open to accept the truth. I've seen enough to understand that there are things that defy explanations.
> 
> But yes, we look for answers when often there are no definable ones as we understand. So then some say the process of wondering is wasteful, energy focused on folly and fantasy, etc. That I disagree with 100%, because I truly believe that the journey toward understanding makes us better people because we realize that those with whom we share the earth have rights too, and maybe we dig deep down to our spirit and forgive them when they annoy us or trespass on us. I often fail at that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm comfortable with possibly being wrong.  I would love nothing better than to be wrong about this.  I know for certain I don't have all the answers and I like exploring the possibilities that other truths are the real path.  Fear is the root of all "evil" we tend to get afraid when someone disrupts our reality.
Click to expand...


Fear is your reaction when someone disrupts your reality, it isn't everyone's. Most people react with excitement to new things.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> security thoughts---zillions of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the insecure need security thoughts, the real humans only need their wits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true----that's why we have zillions---we have zillions of witless people.
Click to expand...


How many is a zillion?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the insecure need security thoughts, the real humans only need their wits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true----that's why we have zillions---we have zillions of witless people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many is a zillion?
Click to expand...


more than 150. lots more


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> true----that's why we have zillions---we have zillions of witless people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many is a zillion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more than 150. lots more
Click to expand...


Pretty good. You were close. 

Zillion
number_ informal_
1.
an extremely large number of people or things


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one?  How did it come to be part of human evolution?  Where did we pick it up from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.
> 
> Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.
Click to expand...

An animals were created by whom ?


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you did indirectly.  You said spirituality.  Did you mean something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.
> 
> When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?
Click to expand...

Comes from outside, and it is God that is the creator who has created our biology or our biological make up as is found in the miracles that he has created before us. I stand in awe of this, because he has fashioned us, and has made us to have dominion over all creatures that he has created within the whole wide world (we are the smartest), and he has done this by his own hands. Once our bodies were fashioned and formed, he then breathed the breath of life into each and everyone of us, and it is our spirit that retains our inalienable rights in which we have knowledge of as soon as we are awakened by birth into this world. Prior to our birth we are protected by a woman in which God has tasked with this responsibility to keep us safe, and this to the best of her abilities until we are born. She and her husband as parents are to keep us safe until we become accountable in that role for ourselves on down the line. We have seen the results when the bonds are broken in these things, but we choose foolishly to make excuses and/or to live in denial about these things, now go figure.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was unexpected.   I was sure you were going to say the divine side.  Thanks for being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
Click to expand...


And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.

Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.

Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.

There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.

I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is through enlightenment: a spiritual awakening of the mind. It became part of human evolution like language and art as we broke free from basic instincts and sought to understand our place in the universe.
> 
> Despite what some believe, we are not the same as beasts; we are better because we are introspective. This doesn't mean all of us are better or even that the better among us are always better, but it means our ability to empathize shows that we know we are just a small part of the greater universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to demean your religion or belief but why is that simply not just a function of our specific biology?  Why does it have to have a religious explanation?  Animals have languages. They communicate with each other with sounds that represent concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An animals were created by whom ?
Click to expand...


We dont know yet.  All we have are educated guesses.


----------



## Asclepias

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality does not necessarily mean religion. Philosophy is a highly spiritual undertaking which may or may not include religious aspects.
> 
> When we talk of inalienable rights, or 'the creator' that can mean something different to a Buddhist or a Christian or an Agnostic. Trying to understand where one fits into the grand scheme of life (if anywhere or at all) is philosophy. Trying to understand said is a path to enlightenment. It's not about religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK lets roll with that. Whatever you call it is it something that came from outside the human mind or is it something that is part of our biology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comes from outside, and it is God that is the creator who has created our biology or our biological make up as is found in the miracles that he has created before us. I stand in awe of this, because he has fashioned us, and has made us to have dominion over all creatures that he has created within the whole wide world (we are the smartest), and he has done this by his own hands. Once our bodies were fashioned and formed, he then breathed the breath of life into each and everyone of us, and it is our spirit that retains our inalienable rights in which we have knowledge of as soon as we are awakened by birth into this world. Prior to our birth we are protected by a woman in which God has tasked with this responsibility to keep us safe, and this to the best of her abilities until we are born. She and her husband as parents are to keep us safe until we become accountable in that role for ourselves on down the line. We have seen the results when the bonds are broken in these things, but we choose foolishly to make excuses and/or to live in denial about these things, now go figure.
Click to expand...


You should have a lot of evidence to prove that then right?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.
> 
> Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.
> 
> Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.
> 
> There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.
> 
> I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.
Click to expand...


Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it.  My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue.  People grant rights. The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.
> 
> Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.
> 
> Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.
> 
> There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.
> 
> I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it.  My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue.  People grant rights. The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?
Click to expand...


Funny.

*Asclepias writes:* "People grant rights.  The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?"

You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.

Zoom!  Right over your head.

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.

Congratulations.  You've just proven that natural rights exist.

*Got Natural Sentience?  Got the very Essence of Man?*

You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!

If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?

You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck.  What is it?

*dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.  

It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.

So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.

That's the nature of axiomatic propositions.  That's why they're axiomatic.  That's why they're self-evident.

Obviously, natural rights exist.

I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.
> 
> Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.
> 
> Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.
> 
> There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.
> 
> I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it.  My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue.  People grant rights. The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> *Asclepias writes:* "People grant rights.  The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?"
> 
> You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Congratulations.  You've just proven that natural rights exist.
> 
> *Got Natural Sentience?  Got the very Essence of Man?*
> 
> You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!
> 
> If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?
> 
> You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck.  What is it?
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> That's the nature of axiomatic propositions.  That's why they're axiomatic.  That's why they're self-evident.
> 
> Obviously, natural rights exist.
> 
> I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.
Click to expand...



MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.



The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies. 

I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it.  My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue.  People grant rights. The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> *Asclepias writes:* "People grant rights.  The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?"
> 
> You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Congratulations.  You've just proven that natural rights exist.
> 
> *Got Natural Sentience?  Got the very Essence of Man?*
> 
> You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!
> 
> If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?
> 
> You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck.  What is it?
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> That's the nature of axiomatic propositions.  That's why they're axiomatic.  That's why they're self-evident.
> 
> Obviously, natural rights exist.
> 
> I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?
Click to expand...

ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists.  ROFL


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.
> 
> I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.
Click to expand...


Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I  disagree with you.  That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point.  In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural.  They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.
> 
> I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I  disagree with you.  That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point.  In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural.  They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.
Click to expand...

Which government?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> *Asclepias writes:* "People grant rights.  The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?"
> 
> You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Congratulations.  You've just proven that natural rights exist.
> 
> *Got Natural Sentience?  Got the very Essence of Man?*
> 
> You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!
> 
> If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?
> 
> You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck.  What is it?
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> That's the nature of axiomatic propositions.  That's why they're axiomatic.  That's why they're self-evident.
> 
> Obviously, natural rights exist.
> 
> I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists.  ROFL
Click to expand...



ROFL does not constitute proof.  Where is your proof at without bringing man into the equation?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists.  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL does not constitute proof.  Where is your proof at without bringing man into the equation?
Click to expand...


LOL natural rights exist without man... Troll says nothing exists without man .. asks man to show proof natural rights existed before man said they did.  

ROFL


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Troll still claiming nothing exists unless he says it exists.  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL does not constitute proof.  Where is your proof at without bringing man into the equation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL natural rights exist without man... retard says nothing exists without man .. asks man to show proof natural rights existed before man said they did.
> 
> ROFL
Click to expand...


Its sad you guys are reduced to calling names instead of providing proof.  That pretty much lets me know you dont have any.  There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> The older I get, the more I realize how little I know with certainty in these matters. It makes my head hurt sometimes, but I keep wondering anyway. I often think about the universe and where it ends and if it does, what is beyond? It can't be nothing, so it has to be infinite. How fucked is that? Everything and nothing, unceasing for eternity. How can it be?
> 
> I need a whiskey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.
> 
> Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.
> 
> Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.
> 
> There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.
> 
> I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.
Click to expand...


But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism.  Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity.   Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed.  The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness.  That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.

But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world.    So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.

Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind?  The way I see it of course they do.  But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept.  And oh well.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably the reason so many seek refuge in believing in a god, creator, etc.  Humans have an instinctive dislike and fear of the unknown.  They seek continuity in every aspect of life.  Thats why we develop habits and beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.
> 
> Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.
> 
> Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.
> 
> There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.
> 
> I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism.  Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity.   Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed.  The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness.  That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.
> 
> But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world.    So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.
> 
> Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind?  The way I see it of course they do.  But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept.  And oh well.
Click to expand...


Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.
> 
> Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.
> 
> Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.
> 
> There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.
> 
> I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism.  Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity.   Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed.  The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness.  That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.
> 
> But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world.    So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.
> 
> Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind?  The way I see it of course they do.  But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept.  And oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
Click to expand...


What is it exactly that man constructs?  Can he construct good?  Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct evil or harmful?  Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct captivity or freedom?  Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?

Of course humankind confers legal rights.  But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights.  Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.

The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth.  But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people.  And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.

The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights.  These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.

The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism.  Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity.   Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed.  The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness.  That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.
> 
> But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world.    So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.
> 
> Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind?  The way I see it of course they do.  But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept.  And oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it exactly that man constructs?  Can he construct good?  Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct evil or harmful?  Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct captivity or freedom?  Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?
> 
> Of course humankind confers legal rights.  But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights.  Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.
> 
> The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth.  But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people.  And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.
> 
> The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights.  These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.
> 
> The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.
Click to expand...


Mans constructs can be both beneficial and non-beneficial. A construct however is not based on empirical evidence. It is subjective.  

A natural state does not magically turn into a natural right until man says it does.  This is man simply labeling an action and calling it a right. A word that only is relevant in the view of man. The one common denominator in all rights is that man decided that is what he wanted to call the concept.  That does not make it natural or IOW "not man made" by the very definition.

Again you are getting into the benefits of this construct. That doesn't prove it exists in a natural state. It only proves it has positive benefits.  The fact that man created it makes it not natural.  Using this concept of natural rights makes the person/government responsible for its implementation the grantor of these rights.  Nature has nada to do with it. If the government/person granting these rights wants to change their mind the designation of these rights being natural or inalienable makes it more difficult to take back.  Note I said more difficult and not impossible.  The concept of natural or inalienable rights is a sales job and nothing based in provable fact.


----------



## dilloduck

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism.  Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity.   Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed.  The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness.  That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.
> 
> But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world.    So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.
> 
> Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind?  The way I see it of course they do.  But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept.  And oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it exactly that man constructs?  Can he construct good?  Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct evil or harmful?  Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct captivity or freedom?  Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?
> 
> Of course humankind confers legal rights.  But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights.  Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.
> 
> The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth.  But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people.  And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.
> 
> The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights.  These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.
> 
> The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.
Click to expand...


Morals are what man decides them to be


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them


ROFL  please stop...
THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION.  And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist.  ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL  Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes.  ROFLLLLFLFLFL


----------



## Bgallo28

It is all about certain morals people have.


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> The definition is wrong.



That's all they've been doing the whole thread. It's just a strawman.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all they've been doing the whole thread. It's just a strawman.
Click to expand...


Ayup... typical lib obfuscation.

No means yes.

Yes means no.

Is means isn't.  

Protecting means destroying.

Liberty means liberty to steal, murder...

Natural rights means unnatural rights.

Improving means making worse.

Progressive means a-progressive.

Patriotic means unpatriotic.

Freedom of religion means no religion.

Public means private.

Privacy means no privacy.

Security means defenseless.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL  please stop...
> THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION.  And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist.  ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL  Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes.  ROFLLLLFLFLFL
Click to expand...


I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of things that exist without man. Natural rights just isn't one of them
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL  please stop...
> THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION.  And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist.  ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL  Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes.  ROFLLLLFLFLFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
Click to expand...


Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes?  Where did I accuse you of being a rapist?  Lie much?


----------



## Foxfyre

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it exactly that man constructs?  Can he construct good?  Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct evil or harmful?  Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct captivity or freedom?  Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?
> 
> Of course humankind confers legal rights.  But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights.  Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.
> 
> The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth.  But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people.  And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.
> 
> The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights.  These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.
> 
> The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals are what man decides them to be
Click to expand...


I wouldn't have a huge argument about that.

But the discussion isn't about morals.  It is about natural rights.

Try to keep up okay?


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL  please stop...
> THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION.  And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist.  ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL  Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes.  ROFLLLLFLFLFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
Click to expand...


RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.


----------



## RKMBrown

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
Click to expand...

Paid political consultants...


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
Click to expand...


It does indeed.  And boring.  I think intelligent people can cope with the 'is too - is not" kindergarten style of debate for only so long, and then you are almost desperate for adult conversation to reassure you that your brain isn't pickled.

It is difficult to respect the argument that 'we can't prove' our point of view when they refuse to even try to 'prove' theirs or when they ignore answers to the same questions they keep repeating but won't respond to competent arguments made.

Oh well.  Such is life on a message board, yes?


----------



## dblack

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paid political consultants...
Click to expand...


Maybe. But trolling appeals to some. It might just be a hobby.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it.  My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue.  People grant rights. The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> *Asclepias writes:* "People grant rights.  The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?"
> 
> You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Congratulations.  You've just proven that natural rights exist.
> 
> *Got Natural Sentience?  Got the very Essence of Man?*
> 
> You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!
> 
> If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?
> 
> You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck.  What is it?
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> That's the nature of axiomatic propositions.  That's why they're axiomatic.  That's why they're self-evident.
> 
> Obviously, natural rights exist.
> 
> I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?
Click to expand...


Of course, I'm saying the same thing:  that's the axiom.  That's the proof.  That's the premise.  That's the essence.  That's the whole of it.  What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?

You keep demanding that we point to something else?  What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature?  Are you daft?

You proved they exist again!

Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance.  The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.  

Question:  What do we mean when we say _reality_?

Answer:  We mean that which exists *both* within and without our minds.

Question:  What do we mean when we say _delusion/fantasy_?

Answer:  We mean imaginary things.

Question:  Why are they imaginary things?

Answer:  Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.

Question:  What does your contrivance mean?

Answer:  That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside our minds.

*crickets chirping*

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL  please stop...
> THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS IS THAT THEY EXIST WITHOUT MAN's PERMISSION OR SPECIFICATION.  And in response your argument is, no they don't. The definition is wrong so they must not exist, for if they did exist one could prove to you that they did exist using your definition that they don't exist.  ROFLFLLLFOOOFFLLLLFOFOOL  Your no different than the guy who takes the girl saying no as evidence she means yes, because in your book no means yes.  ROFLLLLFLFLFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes?  Where did I accuse you of being a rapist?  Lie much?
Click to expand...


I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
Click to expand...


I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
Click to expand...


Been proven to you dozens of times.  In response each time you moved the goal post a couple times and /or rejected the proof out of hand because it did not fit your definition that they don't exist.

ROFL  Yeah the definition of natural rights is... there are no natural rights.  ROFL


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes?  Where did I accuse you of being a rapist?  Lie much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.
Click to expand...


False.  _Man-made construct_ implies that natural rights do not exist beyond man's mind;  essentially, it means that man does not actually exist outside man's mind.  That's absurd!

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were better than this Brown?  ROFL doesnt prove your point. If natural rights are a man made construct how are they natural?  Where is the proof of this besides man saying they exist?  If you can explain that I would be impressed.  I dont understand how you go from not being able to prove your point to basically accusing me of being a rapist. If a female tells me no that means to stop at once any and all sexual activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes?  Where did I accuse you of being a rapist?  Lie much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.
Click to expand...

ROFL...

Just because man can conceptualize a natural right does not mean the concept is man made.

Just because I can plant, and harvest a fruit tree.  Does not mean the concept of planting is mine.  Pretty sure the "trees" were planting before man came around they don't even appear to be sentient.  Do trees not have a natural right to plant seeds in the absence of man?  That said leave it to man to create a seedless plant. ROFL


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paid political consultants...
Click to expand...


Wow! Anything to deflect from not being able to prove your point?  "Thats it. He must be a paid political consultant."  No. You couldn't pay me to be a political consultant.  I went from claiming you had the natural right to defend yourself to my current position.  I did that by looking up what "rights", "inalienable", and "natural" meant.  I see no such growth in your opinions and even less proof you are correct.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
Click to expand...


But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?

And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes?  Where did I accuse you of being a rapist?  Lie much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL...
> 
> Just because man can conceptualize a natural right does not mean the concept is man made.
> 
> Just because I can plant, and harvest a fruit tree.  Does not mean the concept of planting is mine.  Pretty sure the "trees" were planting before man came around they don't even appear to be sentient.
Click to expand...


Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Asclepias does it again!*



Asclepias said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government----our government gave that right to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
Click to expand...


*KokomoJojo*, your heart and mind are sound; but you're thinking is wrong because you do not have a firm grasp on your premise.  

All rights that can be taken away are granted by human beings and administered by governments.  The innate rights of man are not granted by man or derived from government.  In fact, the latter does not grant even the rights that can be taken away.  At the natural level of being, only humans can grant things of any kind.  In the final analysis, at the natural level of being, government is a human abstraction which grants nothing at all.  The innate rights of man simply are in nature.  The latter cannot be taken, transferred or extinguished.  

*Asclepias*, you are standing on the very premise of the inalienable rights of man, but that fact flies right over your head.  

Can anyone show you that the innate rights of man come from any other entity in nature but human consciousness?!

*No! You blind, obtuse creature!*

The inalienable, innate and natural rights of Man necessarily spring forth from the mind of Man, a sentient being, _because_ their essence is embedded in the mind of Man, a sentient being in nature.  

Seriously, *Asclepias*, what in the world is wrong with you?

Earlier, thinking out loud and forgetting the rules of the forum on which we are discussing this issue, I blurted, as it were, a certain term without qualification.

This is strictly a clinical question:  *Asclepias*, do you think it's possible that you are a sociopath?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


I can tell you why.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been proven to you dozens of times.  In response each time you moved the goal post a couple times and /or rejected the proof out of hand because it did not fit your definition that they don't exist.
> 
> ROFL  Yeah the definition of natural rights is... there are no natural rights.  ROFL
Click to expand...


It hasnt been proven at all.  I have never moved the goal post except when moving from my position that i had a natural right to defend myself to my current position that I don't.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you why.
Click to expand...


Might makes right?


----------



## RKMBrown

natural right: a right conferred upon man by natural law (websters)

Conferred upon man does not mean made by man.

The actor here is natural law.

Natural law - a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law (Websters.)
  [MENTION=44774]Asclepias[/MENTION]  your definitions of natural right are incorrect.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL...
> 
> Just because man can conceptualize a natural right does not mean the concept is man made.
> 
> Just because I can plant, and harvest a fruit tree.  Does not mean the concept of planting is mine.  Pretty sure the "trees" were planting before man came around they don't even appear to be sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.
Click to expand...


ROFL your a joke.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know "no" does not mean yes?  Where did I accuse you of being a rapist?  Lie much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  _Man-made construct_ implies that natural rights do not exist beyond man's mind;  essentially, it means that man does not actually exist outside man's minds.  That's absurd!
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
Click to expand...


True. Natural rights do not exist outside of mans mind.  They are no different than legal or civil rights. They are made up by man. No essentially it does not mean man does not exist except in his own mind.  Where did you get that one from?  Did you mean comprehend or apprehend?  If you mean apprehend please explain.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  _Man-made construct_ implies that natural rights do not exist beyond man's mind;  essentially, it means that man does not actually exist outside man's minds.  That's absurd!
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Natural rights do not exist outside of mans mind.  They are no different than legal or civil rights. They are made up by man. No essentially it does not mean man does not exist except in his own mind.  Where did you get that one from?  Did you mean comprehend or apprehend?  If you mean apprehend please explain.
Click to expand...


ROFL You should call websters and tell them they have their definition of natural rights upside down.  Maybe they'll let you write a liberal version of the dictionary for them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*And an essence-essence here and an essence-essence there, here an essence, there an essence, everywhere an essence-essence; and a sentience-sentience here and a sentience-sentience there, here a sentience, there a sentience, everywhere a sentience-sentience. . . . *

A human (sentient) being is not a rock or cow. 

It's as simple as this:  you are a living being, but not just any kind of living being (life), but a being who is sentient (liberty) and one who owns his own self (property) in the state of nature that precedes government and in the state of government that follows the state of nature.

The right to life, the right to liberty and the right of private property:  Sentient Life.  Sentient Liberty.  Sentient Property.

The inherently universal attributes of sentient beings in nature in terms of the inherently universal liberties of sentient beings in nature:  the right of religious/ideological belief, the right of free expression, and the right of free movement.

Sentient Belief.  Sentient Expression.  Sentient Movement.

What distinguishes Man from all other living things on the planet?

Answer:  Sentience!  That is his essence!  That is his nature!  

Hence, for those who can follow:  Abstraction _is_ Man's Name!  

Abstraction is what he is!  Abstraction is what he does!  Abstraction is his Right by the very Fact of his Nature.  Abstraction is his Right by the very Fact of his Essence.  Abstraction is his Right by the very Fact of his Sentience.

At the very least, objectively speaking, if not beyond:  His Name _Abstraction_ is embedded in the Material Composition of his Sentient Being in Nature.

These things are not derived from any construct or contraption that Man grants to other things, including government; and it is Man, either as Tyrant or as the People, Who grants government the right to administer and enforce the powers of Man.  It's not and cannot be the other way around.

The Natural Rights of Man are Inalienable _because_ they are innately and essentially who and what Man is.  One cannot take away or transfer or separate or even annihilate the Innate Rights of Man.

What?  

Does the fool imagine that he does any one of these things by killing a human being?  Does the fool imagine that he has destroyed all of humanity by killing a single human being, extant and beyond?  Does the fool imagine that he can erase the essence of any given thing?

Is this fool the source of Man's essence?  Is this fool the end of Man's essence?

Does he imagine himself to be the Alpha and Omega?

Everything I have written on this threadsystematically, step-by-stepleads to this overwhelming and incontrovertible conclusion:  the universal essence of the core attributes of Man is sentience; the universal essence of the fundamental rights of man is sentience.

Man's sentience is inalienable.

Everything in this post is self-evident.   

Knock, knock, anybody home?


----------



## RKMBrown

M.D. Rawlings said:


> What distinguishes Man from all other living things on the planet?



1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
2) Vanity.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


I must have missed that request. 

natural right
noun
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.

Natural Law
noun
1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2. *an observable law relating to natural phenomena*.

Inalienable right
noun
1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.

Right
noun
1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
2. *a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.*

Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed that request.
> 
> natural right
> noun
> any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
> 
> Natural Law
> noun
> 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
> 2. *an observable law relating to natural phenomena*.
> 
> Inalienable right
> noun
> 1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.
> 
> Right
> noun
> 1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
> 2. *a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.*
> 
> Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?
Click to expand...


Dozens of examples have been provided and "ignored" by you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Asclepias* and *dilloduck*, you too *dblack*, with what I've just shown you in the _Essence-Sentence_ post, read the following again:


*Dear Relativist:

More on that Engraving on Man's Heart:  or what possible difference could it make to us?  Free Will.  Your choice.  I opt for the practical, but that's just me.* 

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really? 

The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule: treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you. The rest is history. As I pointed out in the above: it's not that important that this is written on stones or papyrus because it's already written on man's heart; that is to say, it's embedded in his nature, the nature of a sentient being.

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really? 

The essence of its apprehension: the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision that are inherently universal and absolute.

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

The essence of its material ground: the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle: not as _a whole_ as the materialist would have it, but as _the sum_.  The difference between the two is the difference between that which is _metaphysical_ and that which is _quantifiable_, respectively.  

Perhaps you think these things are not actual beyond the constraints of human consciousness. A hardwired illusion! Okay. But the illusion is still the same self-evident realty for us. Make no mistake about it, you are bound by the mutual obligations of morality and their sociopolitical ramifications as summarized in the Golden Rule whether you merely react to their impact on your life at the instinctual level of self-interest and self-preservation, or perceive them at the conscious level of a morally enlightened human being.

Even if your level of apprehension is the former due to the fact that you are a congenital sociopath or merely a relativist with your ego backed up against the wall in the face of the incontrovertible, a more common human failing: you would not have me *(1)* to kill you, *(2)* to oppress you or *(3)* to steal from you. I know this because I would not have you do anyone of these *three* things to me. Apprehension of the ramifications at the rational level of being. Also, I know this because you have incessantly complained about these same *three* things in your supposed falsifications of the actual existence of the *three*, correlative categories of natural rights: *(1)* the right to life, *(2)* the right to liberty and *(3)* the right of private property. Apprehension of the actualization at the empirical level of being.

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

You guys are hung up on the apparent abstraction of the term _right_, as opposed to the term _ability_ and the freedoms thereof. Even when you're not confounding its usage relative to the distinction between these *three* categories of innate rights and the mere political rights, civil rights or civil protections afforded by government: you fail to make the connection. Ironically, you get the essence of the term, but you never get the sense in which this abstraction obtains given that the legal code that attests to the existence of these *three* categories of rights is embedded in human nature, the nature of a sentient being!

You're looking for historical artifacts or declarations as if one need prove to oneself what one already knows to be true. 

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

It's the incorruptible _Imago Dei_ (image of God) embedded in human nature, which persists as your guide toward the way of intellectual and moral rectitude, or as your judge despite the fallen and rebellious aspect of human nature. This along with the empirical repercussions in nature of disregarding its recommendations is God's system of checks and balances against your violation of _His_ inalienable rights and authority, and the dignity of your fellow human beings.

Hence, don't tell me you don't see that which is universally recognized by all as I have just proven, indeed, as you and your cohorts have unwittingly and repeatedly proven every time you think to challenge their existence on the grounds of their alleged neutralization via one of the *three]/b] correlative means: murder, oppression or theft, none of which, quite obviously, ever lays so much as a glove on the ultimate essence of these rights!

*crickets chirping*

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

Yet, as any astute observer may see, one need not appeal to God's existence to demonstrate the actuality of natural morality's imperatives. It's not rationally possible to refute their existence without proving their existence. Hence, they are axiomatically true for all intents and purposes. They are self-evident. 

What possible difference would it make to us if beyond the absolute constraints of human consciousness reality is ultimately the stuff of utter chaos. We do not live our lives or think our lives as if two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Indeed, how could we possibly know if the ultimate facts of realty were the stuff of chaos? 

The distinctions of relativism are the dogma that make no difference.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed that request.
> 
> natural right
> noun
> any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
> 
> Natural Law
> noun
> 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
> 2. *an observable law relating to natural phenomena*.
> 
> Inalienable right
> noun
> 1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.
> 
> Right
> noun
> 1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
> 2. *a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.*
> 
> Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?
Click to expand...


By the way, Asclepias, you never responded to this:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 109 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You never explained what your point was about the divine right of kings.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Asclepias does it again!*
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *KokomoJojo*, your heart and mind are sound; but you're thinking is wrong because you do not have a firm grasp on your premise.
> 
> All rights that can be taken away are granted by human beings and administered by governments.  The innate rights of man are not granted by man or derived from government.  In fact, the latter does not grant even the rights that can be taken away.  At the natural level of being, only humans can grant things of any kind.  In the final analysis, at the natural level of being, government is a human abstraction which grants nothing at all.  The innate rights of man simply are in nature.  The latter cannot be taken, transferred or extinguished.
> 
> *Asclepias*, you are standing on the very premise of the inalienable rights of man, but that fact flies right over your head.
> 
> Can anyone show you that the innate rights of man come from any other entity in nature but human consciousness?!
> 
> *No! You blind, obtuse creature!*
> 
> The inalienable, innate and natural rights of Man necessarily spring forth from the mind of Man, a sentient being, _because_ their essence is embedded in the mind of Man, a sentient being in nature.
> 
> Seriously, *Asclepias*, what in the world is wrong with you?
> 
> Earlier, thinking out loud and forgetting the rules of the forum on which we are discussing this issue, I blurted, as it were, a certain term without qualification.
> 
> This is strictly a clinical question:  *Asclepias*, do you think it's possible that you are a sociopath?
Click to expand...


In case you haven't figured it out by now insults have no effect. I am going to make you smart guys prove your point. Like I said I don't have a problem being wrong but your inability to prove your point and resorting to  insults shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I am certain I am not a sociopath. I bleed for the underdog in most cases. You being unable to prove your point has nothing to do with my morals.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed that request.
> 
> natural right
> noun
> any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
> 
> Natural Law
> noun
> 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
> 2. *an observable law relating to natural phenomena*.
> 
> Inalienable right
> noun
> 1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.
> 
> Right
> noun
> 1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
> 2. *a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.*
> 
> Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dozens of examples have been provided and "ignored" by you.
Click to expand...


Humor me and give me one of the dozens.


----------



## dblack

MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed that request.
> 
> natural right
> noun
> any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
> 
> Natural Law
> noun
> 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
> 2. *an observable law relating to natural phenomena*.
> 
> Inalienable right
> noun
> 1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.
> 
> Right
> noun
> 1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
> 2. *a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.*
> 
> Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, Asclepias, you never responded to this:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 109 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You never explained what your point was about the divine right of kings.
Click to expand...


I dont recall making a point about that subject other than saying:

"let me guess....the kings were in power" or something to that effect.  What did you need to know?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might makes right?
Click to expand...


*Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*

*Dilloduck:  What Kind of Creature Are You?*



dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of a human being is behavior?  You have to follow rules in order to have this essence?  This essence leaves should you go to jail?
> 
> This is not normal.  Disconnect.  Separation.  Apartness.  Superficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.
Click to expand...


Indeed, _essence_ is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing.  Check?  No.  Of course you don't check.  You can't.  I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level.  You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.  

_Permission_, did you say?!  Wow!  Permission from whom?  People like _you_?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must have missed that request.
> 
> natural right
> noun
> any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
> 
> Natural Law
> noun
> 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
> 2. *an observable law relating to natural phenomena*.
> 
> Inalienable right
> noun
> 1. a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.
> 
> Right
> noun
> 1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable
> 2. *a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.*
> 
> Where did someone witness a natural law that specified rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Asclepias, you never responded to this:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 109 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You never explained what your point was about the divine right of kings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont recall making a point about that subject other than saying:
> 
> "let me guess....the kings were in power" or something to that effect.  What did you need to know?
Click to expand...


I don't need to know anything in this regard; you do.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. *I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind*. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.



I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement.  What does that mean to you?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.



They are not built on them; these things are their very essence.  Read and think.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The are not built on them; these things are their very essence.  Read and think.
Click to expand...


I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might makes right?
Click to expand...



*Why does Asclepias fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*



Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats funny religions have been around at least for 70k years from the latest evidence found. Thats a lot of history. People have probably always sought solace in the concept of a supernatural being that controlled some part of human destiny. It may not be your experience but you cant get around it being a constant theme just because you are not aware of it.  My balls being fake or real has nothing to with the issue.  People grant rights. The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> *Asclepias writes:* "People grant rights.  The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?"
> 
> You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Congratulations.  You've just proven that natural rights exist.
> 
> *Got Natural Sentience?  Got the very Essence of Man?*
> 
> You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!
> 
> If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?
> 
> You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck.  What is it?
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> That's the nature of axiomatic propositions.  That's why they're axiomatic.  That's why they're self-evident.
> 
> Obviously, natural rights exist.
> 
> I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?
Click to expand...


Of course, I'm saying the same thing:  that's the axiom.  That's the proof.  That's the premise.  That's the essence.  That's the whole of it.  What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?

You keep demanding that we point to something else?  What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature?  Are you daft?

You proved they exist again!

Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance.  The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.  

Question:  What do we mean when we say _reality_?

Answer:  We mean that which exists *both* within and without our minds.

Question:  What do we mean when we say _delusion/fantasy_?

Answer:  We mean imaginary things.

Question:  Why are they imaginary things?

Answer:  Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.

Question:  What does your contrivance mean?

Answer:  That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside His mind.

*crickets chirping*

Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Asclepias, you never responded to this:  Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 109 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You never explained what your point was about the divine right of kings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont recall making a point about that subject other than saying:
> 
> "let me guess....the kings were in power" or something to that effect.  What did you need to know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to know anything in this regard; you do.
Click to expand...


Actually I dont. What makes you think I need to know something about it?  Why did you make the statement I never explained my point then?  Were you just making a observation?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might makes right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Why does Asclepias fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.
> 
> *Asclepias writes:* "People grant rights.  The proof is that they do it.  Where is the proof nature or god does?"
> 
> You're standing on the very axiom of their fact in nature.
> 
> Zoom!  Right over your head.
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Congratulations.  You've just proven that natural rights exist.
> 
> *Got Natural Sentience?  Got the very Essence of Man?*
> 
> You cannot argue against the axiom that human (sentient) beings have natural rights . . . without proving that they do!
> 
> If you don't need to appeal to the existence of God to prove this, why do I?
> 
> You're more obtuse than a pile of bricks.  There's something seriously wrong with you and dilloduck.  What is it?
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> That's the nature of axiomatic propositions.  That's why they're axiomatic.  That's why they're self-evident.
> 
> Obviously, natural rights exist.
> 
> I just gave you the key that clears away the cobwebs and opens the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm saying the same thing:  that's the axiom.  That's the proof.  That's the premise.  That's the essence.  That's the whole of it.  What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?
> 
> You keep demanding that we point to something else?  What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature?  Are you daft?
> 
> You proved they exist again!
> 
> Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance.  The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.
> 
> Question:  What do we mean when we say _reality_?
> 
> Answer:  We mean that which exists *both* within and without our minds.
> 
> Question:  What do we mean when we say _delusion/fantasy_?
> 
> Answer:  We mean imaginary things.
> 
> Question:  Why are they imaginary things?
> 
> Answer:  Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.
> 
> Question:  What does your contrivance mean?
> 
> Answer:  That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside His mind.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
Click to expand...


You sound like you are having mental seizure.  You cant say because man decrees it so then it must be.  Man has been egregiously wrong before and will be again. When you see proof of rights in nature or laws that provide the basis for those rights please point it out to me.  That is the only way you can provide proof.  Otherwise all you are doing is talking about sky fairies.


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The are not built on them; these things are their very essence.  Read and think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.
Click to expand...


From what I understand he is saying they exist because man says so.  The essence thing and all that.

Essence

1.
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, *esp. something abstract*, that determines its character.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The are not built on them; these things are their very essence.  Read and think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.
Click to expand...


Then why did you make this assertion.  Yours is one of complexity piled on top of the simple fact of the matter.  Your assertion is essentially meaningless, a mental illusion.

Read and think:

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 136 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...exist-without-government-136.html#post8933274

You have a sound mind and heart.  You can see it once you untangle the fact from your mental illusion.

By the way, why can't dilloduck and Asclepias wrap their minds around this essential fact of humanity at all?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might makes right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why does Asclepias fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD all you did is reiterate what you said earlier.  You just proved natural rights are a construct of man.  Just because man made them up doesn't mean they are real.  Saying they are real because you say so doesn't make them natural since natural means not man made.  What part of man can have nothing to do with them existing do you not get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm saying the same thing:  that's the axiom.  That's the proof.  That's the premise.  That's the essence.  That's the whole of it.  What other entity in nature would apprehend them, grant them or have them?
> 
> You keep demanding that we point to something else?  What would the sentient being point to in nature besides the sentient being in nature?  Are you daft?
> 
> You proved they exist again!
> 
> Your blather about "man-made" is just a contrivance.  The only thing around here that has no substantive ground in reality is your contrivance, a mental delusion of illogic, which exists nowhere else in reality but in your mind.
> 
> Question:  What do we mean when we say _reality_?
> 
> Answer:  We mean that which exists *both* within and without our minds.
> 
> Question:  What do we mean when we say _delusion/fantasy_?
> 
> Answer:  We mean imaginary things.
> 
> Question:  Why are they imaginary things?
> 
> Answer:  Because such things only exist in the mind, not without.
> 
> Question:  What does your contrivance mean?
> 
> Answer:  That Man himself, a natural and sentient being does not actually exist outside His mind.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Only sentient beings apprehend rights . . . *in nature*.  Only sentient beings grant rights . . . *in nature*.  One cannot grant that which one doesn't already have as a matter of one's constitution.  Only sentient beings have rights . . . *in nature*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like you are having mental seizure.  You cant say because man decrees it so then it must be.  Man has been egregiously wrong before and will be again. When you see proof of rights in nature or laws that provide the basis for those rights please point it out to me.  That is the only way you can provide proof.  Otherwise all you are doing is talking about sky fairies.
Click to expand...


The only seizure in sight is that of the sociopath.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

RKMBrown said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What distinguishes Man from all other living things on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
> 2) Vanity.
Click to expand...


Both true.  And the underlying reality of both:  sentience.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The are not built on them; these things are their very essence.  Read and think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what that means and I don't want get into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you make this assertion.  Yours is one of complexity piled on top of the simple fact of the matter.  Your assertion is essentially meaningless, a mental illusion.
> 
> Read and think:
> 
> Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 136 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...exist-without-government-136.html#post8933274
> 
> You have a sound mind and heart.  You can see it once you untangle the fact from your mental illusion.
> 
> By the way, why can't dilloduck and Asclepias wrap their minds around this essential fact of humanity at all?
Click to expand...


Frankly, your stuff loses me when it begins to drift into religious spiritualism. And it's also fairly long. Unfortunately, there are limits on how much time I can spend on this.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What distinguishes Man from all other living things on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
> 2) Vanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both true.  And the underlying reality of both:  sentience.
Click to expand...


My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.


----------



## dblack

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
> 2) Vanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both true.  And the underlying reality of both:  sentience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.
Click to expand...


Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


I can still tell you why.

Read these posts and then read below:

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 136 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...exist-without-government-136.html#post8933274

*Sociopathy/Psychopathy*

Only the sociopath/psychopath _*typically*_ cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation.  Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally.  He knows the difference between right and wrong.  He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others.  He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition.  You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face:  he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.

It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic.  He still cannot feel shame or empathize.  He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child.  Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not.  He doesn't have to.  This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful.  The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative. 

(In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent _or_ sexually deranged.  As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.) 

Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well:  he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity.  He is of the first order of his breed.  He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.

The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we  distinguish him from the others:  while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on.  He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination.  In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have.  He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological.  But what can he do or feel about it?  Nothing!  However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.  

The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.

These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans.  These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line.  Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.     

In any event, the point remains:  when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order.  The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially.  The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him.  Trust me.  Most all of the latter have left this thread.  The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.

That leaves who or what?

All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths.  There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.

____________________________________


*Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*

*Dilloduck:  What Kind of Creature Are You?*



dilloduck said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of a human being is behavior?  You have to follow rules in order to have this essence?  This essence leaves should you go to jail?
> 
> This is not normal.  Disconnect.  Separation.  Apartness.  Superficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.
Click to expand...


Indeed, _essence_ is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing.  Check?  No.  Of course you don't check.  You can't.  I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic.  You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.  

_Permission_, did you say?!  Wow!  Permission from whom?  People like _you_?


----------



## Asclepias

dblack said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both true.  And the underlying reality of both:  sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.
Click to expand...



Thats what the law calls them I agree.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can still tell you why.
> 
> *Sociopathy/Psychopathy*
> 
> Only the sociopath/psychopath _*typically*_ cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation.  Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally.  He knows the difference between right and wrong.  He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others.  He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition.  You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face:  he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.
> 
> It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic.  He still cannot feel shame or empathize.  He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child.  Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not.  He doesn't have to.  This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful.  The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative.
> 
> (In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent _or_ sexually deranged.  As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.)
> 
> Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well:  he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity.  He is of the first order of his breed.  He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.
> 
> The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we  distinguish him from the others:  while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on.  He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination.  In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have.  He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological.  But what can he do or feel about it?  Nothing!  However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.
> 
> The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans.  These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line.  Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.
> 
> In any event, the point remains:  when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order.  The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially.  The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him.  Trust me.  Most all of the latter have left this thread.  The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.
> 
> That leaves who or what?
> 
> All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths.  There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> *Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*
> 
> *Dilloduck:  What Kind of Creature Are You?*
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of a human being is behavior?  You have to follow rules in order to have this essence?  This essence leaves should you go to jail?
> 
> This is not normal.  Disconnect.  Separation.  Apartness.  Superficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, _essence_ is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing.  Check?  No.  Of course you don't check.  You can't.  I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic.  You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.
> 
> _Permission_, did you say?!  Wow!  Permission from whom?  People like _you_?
Click to expand...


I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded.  Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dog is sentient. He figured out how to get into my house all by himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what the law calls them I agree.
Click to expand...


So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?

Oops.  Wait a minute.  That isn't true is it?

So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?

Oops.  Wait a minute.  That doesn't work, does it?

Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.

Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. To a degree. And dogs have inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what the law calls them I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?
> 
> Oops.  Wait a minute.  That isn't true is it?
> 
> So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?
> 
> Oops.  Wait a minute.  That doesn't work, does it?
> 
> Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.
> 
> Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.
Click to expand...


No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so.  I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when I asked you to post the dictionary defiinition of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights', you ignored me.  Why is that?
> 
> And when I posted a long string of dictionary/encyclopedia defiinitions of 'natural rights' and 'unalienable rights' you ignored that too.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can still tell you why.
> 
> *Sociopathy/Psychopathy*
> 
> Only the sociopath/psychopath _*typically*_ cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation.  Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally.  He knows the difference between right and wrong.  He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others.  He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition.  You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face:  he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.
> 
> It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic.  He still cannot feel shame or empathize.  He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child.  Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not.  He doesn't have to.  This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful.  The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative.
> 
> (In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent _or_ sexually deranged.  As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.)
> 
> Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well:  he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity.  He is of the first order of his breed.  He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.
> 
> The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we  distinguish him from the others:  while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on.  He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination.  In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have.  He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological.  But what can he do or feel about it?  Nothing!  However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.
> 
> The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans.  These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line.  Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.
> 
> In any event, the point remains:  when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order.  The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially.  The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him.  Trust me.  Most all of the latter have left this thread.  The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.
> 
> That leaves who or what?
> 
> All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths.  There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> *Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*
> 
> *Dilloduck:  What Kind of Creature Are You?*
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, _essence_ is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing.  Check?  No.  Of course you don't check.  You can't.  I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic.  You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.
> 
> _Permission_, did you say?!  Wow!  Permission from whom?  People like _you_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded.  Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?
Click to expand...


Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck?  I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.

The games sociopaths play.

Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.

Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.

Which is it?

Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession.  And I'm neither a sociopath nor a psychopath.

What am I by profession?

I see you and know you for what you are.  I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you.  It's not that you guys are especially stupid.  You're something else.

Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?

____________________________________________________

Edit:  wrote _neither . . . or _first time.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what the law calls them I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?
> 
> Oops.  Wait a minute.  That isn't true is it?
> 
> So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?
> 
> Oops.  Wait a minute.  That doesn't work, does it?
> 
> Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.
> 
> Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so.  I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?
Click to expand...


You prove the fact of natural rights in humans again.

Disconnectedness.  Glib.  Superficial.  Not normal.  Deficient in a certain area of extrapolation.  

Humans are objects, like any other kind of objects--sentient or inanimate.  Right, Asclepias?

Since you can't grasp the reality of humanness, since you can't actually grasp the matter even at the level of sheer logic, since the obvious is lost on you:  let's talk about you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be a sociopath?

No, of course not, you're version of this breed doesn't know or think there's anything wrong with him.

Either that or you're trolling.

Which is it?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can still tell you why.
> 
> *Sociopathy/Psychopathy*
> 
> Only the sociopath/psychopath _*typically*_ cannot comprehend the ultimate essence of Mankind, though he is, nevertheless, bound by the imperatives of natural law/morality, but only as one who appreciates their cogency in the purely instinctual terms of self-interest and self-preservation.  Hence, he's not insane (psychotic), technically or legally.  He knows the difference between right and wrong.  He just doesn't care insofar as this dichotomy pertains to the life or to the liberty or to the property of others.  He cannot feel shame or empathize, and at present, there is no cure for this condition.  You can propound the essence of human beings and the inherent attributes thereof until you're blue in the face:  he will never grasp what you and I take for granted at a glance and/or grant these things to have any significance relative to the fact of his condition.
> 
> It is only the very rare psychopath who can grasp the essence of humanity in all of its dimensional facets . . . though only as a matter of sheer logic.  He still cannot feel shame or empathize.  He is such a creature congenitally, not as a rule due to being a victim of any severe neglect or abuse as a child.  Though he is a criminal by nature, as one who may engage in criminal behavior without compunction should it serve his purpose, he typically does not.  He doesn't have to.  This kind of psychopath is highly intelligent and successful.  The psychopaths who can grasp the essence of humanity is rarely violent or sexually deranged in any criminal sense by compulsion, though he is pathologically narcissistic and manipulative.
> 
> (In fact, I actually don't know of any case in which this capacity has been demonstrated by a psychopath who is compulsively violent _or_ sexually deranged.  As far as I know, Hannibal Lectors only exist in fiction.)
> 
> Keep in mind the key factor that separates him from other congenital psychopaths, who may in fact be intelligent and successful as well:  he can comprehensively grasp the essence of humanity.  He is of the first order of his breed.  He is very rare, and the least dangerous to the rest of us; though never make any mistake about it, he can kill, oppress and rob without any moral or emotional compunctions.
> 
> The most interesting thing about the top dog of psychopaths and the substance by which we  distinguish him from the others:  while he can comprehensibly grasp the essence of humanity, he does not grant it to be of any significance to the fact of his condition, just a mere curiosity in terms of ethics that other human beings are hung up on.  He partitions this apprehension in a remote part of his mind, particularly while he is actively engaged in the psychopathic arts of manipulation and domination.  In other words, this rare bird is not merely aware of the fact that he is different from other human beings; he's aware of the fact that he's not normal, i.e., that he's missing something he should have.  He's aware of the fact that his condition is pathological.  But what can he do or feel about it?  Nothing!  However, his awareness of these things does give him a very real and practical advantage over the common sociopath and his fellow psychopaths with regard to the art of avoiding detection.
> 
> The rest of the pack do not think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> These are among the distinctions that go to the only discernible differences between sociopathy and the levels of psychopathy we find in humans.  These distinctions are very fine lines; indeed, the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths, for all intents and purposes, is a very fine line.  Aside from the distinction between normal human beings and these creatures, these distinctions are universally held, albeit, not without some controversy over the exact details.
> 
> In any event, the point remains:  when you are talking to someone who cannot grasp the nuts and bolts of humanity's essence, you are talking to a sociopath or to a psychopath of the lower order.  The only other possibilities is that you're talking to someone who is playing the devil's advocate, merely trolling or is a relativist proper, who, strictly as a matter of pride, will not concede the obvious facts of this matter after having so vociferously argued the opposite initially.  The mere relativist sees his error once it is shown to him.  Trust me.  Most all of the latter have left this thread.  The relativists/merely confused who remain are those still grappling with ideas and arguments they've simply never considered before at any level beyond the slogans of our time.
> 
> That leaves who or what?
> 
> All sociopaths/psychopaths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are sociopaths/psychopaths.  There is one or perhaps two persons still on this thread who are at the very least narcissists in the clinical sense, and they appear to be sociopaths as well.
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> *Why does dilloduck fail to see/acknowledge the essential fact of natural rights?*
> 
> *Dilloduck:  What Kind of Creature Are You?*
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, _essence_ is my word, not yours in any sense that matters, and goes to the pertinent realities we are discussing.  Check?  No.  Of course you don't check.  You can't.  I grasp the essence of the matter, the essence of humanity, but not merely at the intellectual level of logic.  You don't grasp the essence of humanity at all.
> 
> _Permission_, did you say?!  Wow!  Permission from whom?  People like _you_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded.  Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck?  I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.
> 
> The games sociopaths play.
> 
> Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.
> 
> Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession.  And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.
> 
> What am I by profession?
> 
> I see you and know you for what you are.  I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you.  It's not that you guys are especially stupid.  You're something else.
> 
> Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?
Click to expand...


I dimly remember seeing your question about essence  but it did not apply to the debate so I probably stopped reading your post.

What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath.  He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.

If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it.  That still wont explain your lack of proof inalienable rights are not merely the construct of man.

I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.

No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky.  You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath.  I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you?  I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong.  Just who is the troll here?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the idea here is that mere animals apprehend rights and grant rights?
> 
> Oops.  Wait a minute.  That isn't true is it?
> 
> So to make your argument work, you disregard the kind of sentience imbued with natural rights?
> 
> Oops.  Wait a minute.  That doesn't work, does it?
> 
> Obviously, only humans have the pertinent kind of sentience.
> 
> Mere animals are the natural resources of Man or the property of Man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so.  I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You prove the fact of natural rights in humans again.
> 
> Disconnectedness.  Glib.  Superficial.  Not normal.  Deficient in a certain area of extrapolation.
> 
> Humans are objects, like any other kind of objects--sentient or inanimate.  Right, Asclepias?
> 
> Since you can't grasp the reality of humanness, since you can't actually grasp the matter even at the level of sheer logic, since the obvious is lost on you:  let's talk about you.
> 
> Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be a sociopath?
> 
> No, of course not, you're version of this breed doesn't know or think there's anything wrong with him.
> 
> Either that or you're trolling.
> 
> Which is it?
Click to expand...


The only thing I have proved is that humans make up stuff to make themselves feel a little more secure.

What makes you think I cant grasp the reality of humanness?  Its all around me and very apparent.

Yes I have considered the possibility that I was a sociopath before. However, understanding what it means I was able to disregard the notion it was possible. All humans have faults and can be wrong.  I cant count how many times I have been wrong and probably will be in the future.  Have you ever considered the possibility that you are delusional?

You dont get to limit me to just 2 choices.  Here is a 3rd choice for you to consider. 

You dont know what you are talking about.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are so busy reveling in your ability to write dissertations in each and every one of your posts that you fail to realize I merely did not see the request and have since responded.  Remember what I told you earlier about being concise and not so long winded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck?  I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.
> 
> The games sociopaths play.
> 
> Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.
> 
> Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession.  And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.
> 
> What am I by profession?
> 
> I see you and know you for what you are.  I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you.  It's not that you guys are especially stupid.  You're something else.
> 
> Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dimly remember seeing your question *about essence* *but it did not apply to the debate *so I probably stopped reading your post.
> 
> What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath.  He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.
> 
> If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it.  That still wont explain your lack of proof *inalienable rights* are not merely *the construct of man*.
> 
> I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.
> 
> *No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky*.  You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath.  I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you?  I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong.  Just who is the troll here?
Click to expand...


How could I be wrong in this instance, given the fact that the matter is axiomatic?  I've proven they exist beyond all doubt in nature and in the consciousness of humanity in nature.  Self-evident.  You have proven their existence in your attempts to disprove them.  But you can't grasp that.  You deny the pertinence of the very essence of the matter itself.

The sociopath can say _I admit I could possibly be wrong_, but he will never say that he _is_ wrong and mean it, essentially, because he can't ever put his finger on why he would be wrong.  He can't do it with regard to the essence of things.  He can only do it  with regard to the superficial distinctions between things.  

The ploys of sociopaths.  Deflection.  Insinuation.  Pathological dishonesty.

So you two are not trolling?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone pretty much understands the concept is a man made construct.  if it is not where did it come from?  The authors of the english language said no means no.  That too is a construct and it very well could mean yes if they decide to change the definition.  I said you basically accused me of being a rapist by saying I am like the guy that thinks a women means yes when she says no. That would be a rapist that proceeds to have sex with the women even if she says no.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL...
> 
> Just because man can conceptualize a natural right does not mean the concept is man made.
> 
> Just because I can plant, and harvest a fruit tree.  Does not mean the concept of planting is mine.  Pretty sure the "trees" were planting before man came around they don't even appear to be sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.
Click to expand...


Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.


----------



## dcraelin

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck?  I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.
> 
> The games sociopaths play.
> 
> Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.
> 
> Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession.  And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.
> 
> What am I by profession?
> 
> I see you and know you for what you are.  I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you.  It's not that you guys are especially stupid.  You're something else.
> 
> Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dimly remember seeing your question *about essence* *but it did not apply to the debate *so I probably stopped reading your post.
> 
> What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath.  He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.
> 
> If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it.  That still wont explain your lack of proof *inalienable rights* are not merely *the construct of man*.
> 
> I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.
> 
> *No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky*.  You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath.  I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you?  I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong.  Just who is the troll here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could I be wrong in this instance, given the fact that the matter is axiomatic?  I've proven they exist beyond all doubt in nature and in the consciousness of humanity in nature.  Self-evident.  You have proven their existence in your attempts to disprove them.  But you can't grasp that.  You deny the pertinence of the very essence of the matter itself.
> 
> The sociopath can say _I admit I could possibly be wrong_, but he will never say that he _is_ wrong and mean it, essentially, because he can't ever put his finger on why he would be wrong.  He can't do it with regard to the essence of things.  He can only do it  with regard to the superficial distinctions between things.
> 
> The ploys of sociopaths.  Deflection.  Insinuation.  Pathological dishonesty.
> 
> So you two are not trolling?
Click to expand...


never mind...didnt see it was the clean debate zone


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recall the up close and intimate conversation I had with you and dilloduck?  I asked specific questions about the essence of things human.
> 
> The games sociopaths play.
> 
> Dilloduck is either a sociopath or he's trolling.
> 
> Now I know for certain that you're either a sociopath or you're trolling.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Aside from being an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught about the history of ideas and events, I'm something else by profession.  And I'm neither a sociopath or a psychopath.
> 
> What am I by profession?
> 
> I see you and know you for what you are.  I'm only alerting the others on this thread to the only possible alternatives so that they might understand that they are wasting their time on you.  It's not that you guys are especially stupid.  You're something else.
> 
> Those who think they are merely trolling raise your hands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dimly remember seeing your question *about essence* *but it did not apply to the debate *so I probably stopped reading your post.
> 
> What makes you think Dillo is a troll or a sociopath.  He seems to have more of a grasp on how to communicate with humans than you do and just because his opinon is different that doesn't make him a troll.
> 
> If it makes your ego feel better to believe that I am a troll or sociopath then have at it.  That still wont explain your lack of proof *inalienable rights* are not merely *the construct of man*.
> 
> I dont care what your profession is but if I had to take a guess I would say you are a author.
> 
> *No you dont see me because your nose is too high in the air to see anything but the sky*.  You obviously dont know me if you think i am trolling or a sociopath.  I applaud you alerting others but like most humans you forgot you are prone to making mistakes. You could simply be wrong in your ideas. I bet you never considered that alternative did you?  I can admit that about myself. I could possibly be wrong.  Just who is the troll here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could I be wrong in this instance, given the fact that the matter is axiomatic?  I've proven they exist beyond all doubt in nature and in the consciousness of humanity in nature.  Self-evident.  You have proven their existence in your attempts to disprove them.  But you can't grasp that.  You deny the pertinence of the very essence of the matter itself.
> 
> The sociopath can say _I admit I could possibly be wrong_, but he will never say that he _is_ wrong and mean it, essentially, because he can't ever put his finger on why he would be wrong.  He can't do it with regard to the essence of things.  He can only do it  with regard to the superficial distinctions between things.
> 
> The ploys of sociopaths.  Deflection.  Insinuation.  Pathological dishonesty.
> 
> So you two are not trolling?
Click to expand...


So you admit you haven't considered you are wrong or you don't know what axiomatic means? Figures.  You haven't proven anything other than man made up rights. I dont care how many essences humans have.  In case you missed it self-evident is an opinion not a fact. Its self evident to me I am not a troll. To you it is not. See how that works?

I think you missed in my post where I said I have been wrong before and will probably be wrong again. I will explain to you how I put a finger on it. I realized I did not have the knowledge of the subject my mentor was explaining to me.  So far you have exhibited the traits of being a sociopath way more than I have.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The idea is that man makes up things then tries to say its natural because they say so.  I have yet to see a dog proclaim it had inalienable rights despite being able to display sentience. Have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prove the fact of natural rights in humans again.
> 
> Disconnectedness.  Glib.  Superficial.  Not normal.  Deficient in a certain area of extrapolation.
> 
> Humans are objects, like any other kind of objects--sentient or inanimate.  Right, Asclepias?
> 
> Since you can't grasp the reality of humanness, since you can't actually grasp the matter even at the level of sheer logic, since the obvious is lost on you:  let's talk about you.
> 
> Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be a sociopath?
> 
> No, of course not, you're version of this breed doesn't know or think there's anything wrong with him.
> 
> Either that or you're trolling.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing I have proved is that humans make up stuff to make themselves feel a little more secure.
Click to expand...


You proved this about the existence of natural rights in human (sentient) beings?

No you didn't.  You proved the very opposite, but you can't grasp that fact.

Everyone knows that fear and intellectual bigotry are failings to which human beings are universally subject.  There's nothing profound about that observation.  That's an example of a superficial distinction between what may be held to exist as a matter of fear/ignorance and what does actually exist as a matter of fact.

But what you're actually insinuating is that other human beings hold something to be true in this instance that only You rightly understand to be . . . what exactly?



> What makes you think I cant grasp the reality of humanness?  Its all around me and very apparent.



A glib, superficial acknowledgment regarding the existence of an object, a category of thing, but you still don't exhibit an understanding of what I actually pointed out to you, namely, the essence of humanness, not humanity's existence, which is all you're talking about here.



> Yes I have considered the possibility that I was a sociopath before. However, understanding what it means I was able to disregard the notion it was possible. All humans have faults and can be wrong.  I cant count how many times I have been wrong and probably will be in the future.  Have you ever considered the possibility that you are delusional?



Wrong?  About what kind of things:  the superficial distinctions between things as objects or the distinctions between things in terms of essence?

Am I delusional?  About what?



> You dont get to limit me to just 2 choices.  Here is a 3rd choice for you to consider.
> 
> You dont know what you are talking about.



You proved the existence of natural rights, but you either do not grasp that fact or will not admit that fact.  There's only two possibilities.  

Either you don't know or think there's anything wrong with you or you're trolling.

Which is it?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL...
> 
> Just because man can conceptualize a natural right does not mean the concept is man made.
> 
> Just because I can plant, and harvest a fruit tree.  Does not mean the concept of planting is mine.  Pretty sure the "trees" were planting before man came around they don't even appear to be sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.
Click to expand...


I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dcraelin said:


> axiomatic? what the , why even use a word like that ...if you cant say it simpler than you've done then your probably just using a lot of big words to mask a fraudulent argument.



There is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic.  You don't know what an axiom is, do you?  It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.


----------



## dilloduck

If you don't like the message shoot the messenger ? Calling people sociopaths certainly falls outside the rules of the Clean Debate Zone.


----------



## dcraelin

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> axiomatic? what the , why even use a word like that ...if you cant say it simpler than you've done then your probably just using a lot of big words to mask a fraudulent argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic.  You don't know what an axiomatic thing is, do you?  It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.
Click to expand...


well I read it was something greek mathematicians used as a beginning point in a proof. a point agreed to not need a proof.  Agreed to is perhaps the key.

some said .... self-evident

but imagine if Jefferson had written....WE hold these truths to be axiomatic....... good thing he didnt.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> If you don't like the message shoot the messenger ? Calling people sociopaths certainly falls outside the rules of the Clean Debate Zone.




Its pretty much all he has left.  He cant possibly be wrong so anyone that disagrees is a sociopath.  I mean they must be because his argument is axiomatic. I think i have heard it all now.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. *I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind*. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement.  What does that mean to you?
Click to expand...


I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity.   I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.

However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."

IMO the point was more to the opposite.  That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when the natural rights fail some test of rationality.  Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down.  For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't.  The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.


----------



## Asclepias

dcraelin said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> axiomatic? what the , why even use a word like that ...if you cant say it simpler than you've done then your probably just using a lot of big words to mask a fraudulent argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic.  You don't know what an axiomatic thing is, do you?  It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well I read it was something greek mathematicians used as a beginning point in a proof. a point agreed to not need a proof.  Agreed to is perhaps the key.
> 
> some said .... self-evident
> 
> but imagine if Jefferson had written....WE hold these truths to be axiomatic....... good thing he didnt.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding!?  You mean that people actually take for granted something is true and formulate entire concepts from that assumption?  This is an outrage!


----------



## dcraelin

asclepias said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m.d. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing simpler in human consciousness than that which is axiomatic.  You don't know what an axiomatic thing is, do you?  It is something that cannot be negated as any argument thrown against it actually proves it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well i read it was something greek mathematicians used as a beginning point in a proof. A point agreed to not need a proof.  Agreed to is perhaps the key.
> 
> Some said .... Self-evident
> 
> but imagine if jefferson had written....we hold these truths to be axiomatic....... Good thing he didnt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you kidding!?  You mean that people actually take for granted something is true and formulate entire concepts from that assumption?  This is an outrage!
Click to expand...


lol...


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
Click to expand...

And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities.  I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say they can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.

Which terms are you trying to redefine?  ungranted as meaning granted?  Or that there are no actual rights and only abilites some of which have been granted and others not?  Granted abilities and natural abilities?  Is that your problem you can't deal with the difference between natural rights (ungranted) and natural abilities (ungranted)?

A plant's natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species. 

The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD - I haven't really been reading your posts in much depth because I agree with you more than you seem to realize. *I'm fully on board with the idea that our inalienable freedoms are innate properties of the human mind*. And I *think* you agree with me, that natural rights are built on those inalienable freedoms. In my view that is, by far, the most important point in this discussion. The core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree. The details of how that rationale is worked out is another debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement.  What does that mean to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity.   I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.
> 
> However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."
> 
> IMO the point was more to the opposite.  *That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. * To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when one of the natural rights fails some test of rationality.  Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down.  For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't.  The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.
Click to expand...


I think your point is true in theory but entirely false in reality.  Maybe thats the distinction here.  You have rights in theory but all of them can be taken away in reality.  In the case we are looking at this realistically rights simply don't exist unless man defines them and gives them to others.  There is no way around that as evidenced over and over in history.


----------



## dilloduck

Unicorns have one horn--everyone knows that right ?  I mean I've seen paintings and drawings of them everywhere. They even look the same from one country to the next thereby proving the universality of unicorns. Only a sociopath wouldn't have the compassion to admit that there is such a creature.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
Click to expand...




You prove it again.  And this is the last time I will demonstrate your sociopathy.

Only human (sentient) beings can apprehend rights in nature, declare their existence in nature or grant them in nature.

What is this mysterious entity in nature other than Man, a sentient being, that can do these things?  And how could Man possibly do these things if the Right to do them were not in fact the very composition or essence of his being?

You simply are not capable of making out the distinction between the consequent abilities of humanity and the essence of humanity that makes these abilities possible.  

You are refuted.

Dilloduck is refuted.

Rabbi' nonsense that the mutual obligations of natural morality are not the imperatives of natural law is refuted.

G.T.'s unwitting assertion of a metaphysical argument as an empirical argument is refuted.

RKMBrown's nonsense that natural law is not natural morality is refuted. 

dcraelin's silliness about the most simplest kind of proposition is refuted.

Refuted.  Refuted.  Refuted.

Game over.

End of discussion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

So, to the natural rights crowd...

Is marriage a natural right?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities.  I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say the can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.
> 
> Which terms are you trying to redefine?  ungranted as meaning granted?  Or that there are not actual rights and only abilites some of with have been granted and others not?  Granted abilities and natural abilities?  Is that your problem you can deal with the difference between natural right (ungranted) and natural ability (ungranted)?
> 
> A plants natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species.
> 
> The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.
Click to expand...


Please point out my lie and please point out what terms i am redefining.  You just said it when you said a natural right cannot be granted.  How did it turn into a right if it cant be granted?  Inherent in the definition of a right is that it is something that is givein. A plants ability to seed is not a right. Its what I just called it. An ability.  To further prove my point are you saying that plants that produce seedless grapes dont have the natural right to reproduce?


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prove it again.  And this is the last time I will demonstrate your sociopathy.
> 
> Only human (sentient) beings can apprehend rights in nature, declare their existence in nature or grant them in nature.
> 
> What is this mysterious entity in nature other than Man, a sentient being, that can do these things?  And how could Man possibly do these things if the Right to do them were not in fact the very composition or essence of his being?
> 
> You simply are not capable of making out the distinction between the consequent abilities of humanity and the essence of humanity that makes these abilities possible.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> Dilloduck is refuted.
> 
> Rabbi' nonsense that the mutual obligations of natural morality are not the imperatives of natural law is refuted.
> 
> G.T.'s unwitting assertion of a metaphysical argument as an empirical argument is refuted.
> 
> RKMBrown's nonsense that natural law is not natural morality is refuted.
> 
> dcraelin's silliness about the most simplest kind of proposition is refuted.
> 
> Refuted.  Refuted.  Refuted.
> 
> Game over.
> 
> End of discussion.
Click to expand...


Thanks for playing. Good luck with your next book.


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prove it again.  And this is the last time I will demonstrate your sociopathy.
> 
> Only human (sentient) beings can apprehend rights in nature, declare their existence in nature or grant them in nature.
> 
> What is this mysterious entity in nature other than Man, a sentient being, that can do these things?  And how could Man possibly do these things if the Right to do them were not in fact the very composition or essence of his being?
> 
> You simply are not capable of making out the distinction between the consequent abilities of humanity and the essence of humanity that makes these abilities possible.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> Dilloduck is refuted.
> 
> Rabbi' nonsense that the mutual obligations of natural morality are not the imperatives of natural law is refuted.
> 
> G.T.'s unwitting assertion of a metaphysical argument as an empirical argument is refuted.
> 
> RKMBrown's nonsense that natural law is not natural morality is refuted.
> 
> dcraelin's silliness about the most simplest kind of proposition is refuted.
> 
> Refuted.  Refuted.  Refuted.
> 
> Game over.
> 
> End of discussion.
Click to expand...


It was humans who declared the king's authority to be a right, from God.

Does that make divine right a natural right?


----------



## NYcarbineer

norwegen said:


> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.



By that logic the Bill of Rights should be removed from the Constitution.


----------



## RKMBrown

I'll make it possibly easier for you.

If a right is only a granted right then what happens with to the right when it becomes ungranted? Does it vanish into thin air? Or perhaps become an anti-right?  Are you trying to redraft the constitution to exclude all natural rights and replace them with your preferred list of anti-rights where we don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because they were never actually granted?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont get the feeling MD, Brown, and Foxfyre agree with that statement.  What does that mean to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity.   I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.
> 
> However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."
> 
> IMO the point was more to the opposite.  *That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. * To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when one of the natural rights fails some test of rationality.  Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down.  For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't.  The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your point is true in theory but entirely false in reality.  Maybe thats the distinction here.  You have rights in theory but all of them can be taken away in reality.  In the case we are looking at this realistically rights simply don't exist unless man defines them and gives them to others.  There is no way around that as evidenced over and over in history.
Click to expand...


How did you miss my earlier discussion about the right to life liberty and property being taken away by the 14th amendment due process clause?

I believe the point of discussion was what was meant by the framers of this nation.  The Northern states took away our natural rights after the civil war.  From the realist perspective, we don't really have any rights left that can't be taken away "constitutionally" as long as it's deemed important to our Emperor.


----------



## dcraelin

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because trees lack the ability to speak doesn't give you the right to negate the proof of said natural right.   But I grant your concession that because you have seen the process and believe it can be proved that in fact plants do have the natural right to the process.  Thx for your concession.  And about time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You prove it again.  And this is the last time I will demonstrate your sociopathy.
> 
> Only human (sentient) beings can apprehend rights in nature, declare their existence in nature or grant them in nature.
> 
> What is this mysterious entity in nature other than Man, a sentient being, that can do these things?  And how could Man possibly do these things if the Right to do them were not in fact the very composition or essence of his being?
> 
> You simply are not capable of making out the distinction between the consequent abilities of humanity and the essence of humanity that makes these abilities possible.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> Dilloduck is refuted.
> 
> Rabbi' nonsense that the mutual obligations of natural morality are not the imperatives of natural law is refuted.
> 
> G.T.'s unwitting assertion of a metaphysical argument as an empirical argument is refuted.
> 
> RKMBrown's nonsense that natural law is not natural morality is refuted.
> 
> dcraelin's silliness about the most simplest kind of proposition is refuted.
> 
> Refuted.  Refuted.  Refuted.
> 
> Game over.
> 
> End of discussion.
Click to expand...


I think it pretty self-evident that you yourself will keep the discussion going


----------



## RKMBrown

NYcarbineer said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights.  That is wrong.  Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic the Bill of Rights should be removed from the Constitution.
Click to expand...


They already have been removed.  The 14th revokes them.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> I'll make it possibly easier for you.
> 
> If a right is only a granted right then what happens with to the right when it becomes ungranted? Does it vanish into thin air? Or perhaps become an anti-right?  Are you trying to redraft the constitution to exclude all natural rights and replace them with your preferred list of anti-rights where we don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because they were never actually granted?



A revoked right goes to the same place that inalienable/natural rights seem to dwell. The air.  What makes you think I am trying to redraft the constitution? Is that the source of you being so emotional and calling names?  Thats actually funny because I dont have one ounce of power to rewrite the constitution.  If I did want to rewrite the constitution to include a list of untouchable rights why would you be against that or would you?


----------



## dcraelin

NYcarbineer said:


> So, to the natural rights crowd...
> 
> Is marriage a natural right?



free association is a "right" agreed to among most people   

marriage is a historically defined union between a man and a woman,
a governmental status whose origins are within the church-state


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have the right to negate the proof of said natural right which is one of the points I am stressing.  I do have the ability to call BS on the fact that "because humans say so" is proof that natural right actually exists. Trees planting are not rights. They are abilities. A right implies something is given. You cant give what someone or something already has.
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities.  I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say the can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.
> 
> Which terms are you trying to redefine?  ungranted as meaning granted?  Or that there are not actual rights and only abilites some of with have been granted and others not?  Granted abilities and natural abilities?  Is that your problem you can deal with the difference between natural right (ungranted) and natural ability (ungranted)?
> 
> A plants natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species.
> 
> The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out my lie and please point out what terms i am redefining.  You just said it when you said a natural right cannot be granted.  How did it turn into a right if it cant be granted?  Inherent in the definition of a right is that it is something that is givein. A plants ability to seed is not a right. Its what I just called it. An ability.  To further prove my point are you saying that plants that produce seedless grapes dont have the natural right to reproduce?
Click to expand...


I already pointed out your lie.

What a load of dog poo.  

THE WHOLE DAMN POINT OF A NATURAL RIGHT IS THAT IS NOT A GRANTED RIGHT.  YOU TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY BUT ALL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED SO THERE ARE NO NATURAL RIGHTS.  COMPLETE BULL SHIT.  UTTER LIE.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree or disagree with dblacks first statements here, they lack scope and absolute clarity.   I suspect he meant the scope of his statements to be more generalizations than certain facts.
> 
> However, I completely disagree with the statement that "the core value of natural rights, in regard to liberty, is in establishing a rationale for human rights that doesn't depend on authoritarian decree."
> 
> IMO the point was more to the opposite.  *That the federal government has no authority over said natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. * To say it's to establish rationale for said human rights is to give credence to the thought that they can be taken away when one of the natural rights fails some test of rationality.  Remember that the modern liberal idea of rationality is upside down.  For example, you currently have the right to life and liberty unless the president says you don't.  The liberal rationale here was to forgo our natural rights to gain some measure of security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think your point is true in theory but entirely false in reality.  Maybe thats the distinction here.  You have rights in theory but all of them can be taken away in reality.  In the case we are looking at this realistically rights simply don't exist unless man defines them and gives them to others.  There is no way around that as evidenced over and over in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you miss my earlier discussion about the right to life liberty and property being taken away by the 14th amendment due process clause?
> 
> I believe the point of discussion was what was meant by the framers of this nation.  The Northern states took away our natural rights after the civil war.  From the realist perspective, we don't really have any rights left that can't be taken away "constitutionally" as long as it's deemed important to our Emperor.
Click to expand...


I probably missed it because I was not aware it existed.  However you seem to have missed your own news flash with that bit of information.  How did the 14th amendment take away our inalienable rights if they are inalienable or natural?


----------



## RKMBrown

As to seedless grapes.. Yeah the natural right to life of those plants has been destroyed by man.  Again as has been explained to you a hundred times, destroying a thing does not eliminate the fact that the grape plant has a natural right to life afforded by it's own inherent ability to grow seeded grapes.

That seedless grape plants require man perform manual functions to maintain the life of the plant outside the natural process is merely proof that man has the natural ability to come up with ways to destroy life.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your point is true in theory but entirely false in reality.  Maybe thats the distinction here.  You have rights in theory but all of them can be taken away in reality.  In the case we are looking at this realistically rights simply don't exist unless man defines them and gives them to others.  There is no way around that as evidenced over and over in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you miss my earlier discussion about the right to life liberty and property being taken away by the 14th amendment due process clause?
> 
> I believe the point of discussion was what was meant by the framers of this nation.  The Northern states took away our natural rights after the civil war.  From the realist perspective, we don't really have any rights left that can't be taken away "constitutionally" as long as it's deemed important to our Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I probably missed it because I was not aware it existed.  However you seem to have missed your own news flash with that bit of information.  How did the 14th amendment take away our inalienable rights if they are inalienable or natural?
Click to expand...


Sigh.  How can you not understand the difference between a natural right to life, and some ass hole shooting your and your family?  How can you be so obtuse?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you choose to LIE and make up shit about natural rights, which can't be granted because they are innate, as being granted rights or abilities.  I wish you'd pick your deflection, either all natural rights are complete bull shit because you say the can't exist without first being un-natural human granted rights, or there is no such thing as a right unless it's a granted right and all rights are actually abilities some of which are granted and some not granted.
> 
> Which terms are you trying to redefine?  ungranted as meaning granted?  Or that there are not actual rights and only abilites some of with have been granted and others not?  Granted abilities and natural abilities?  Is that your problem you can deal with the difference between natural right (ungranted) and natural ability (ungranted)?
> 
> A plants natural right to life includes the process of seeding and growing new plants to naturally replenish more plants of the same species.
> 
> The plant's ability to seed is a part of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out my lie and please point out what terms i am redefining.  You just said it when you said a natural right cannot be granted.  How did it turn into a right if it cant be granted?  Inherent in the definition of a right is that it is something that is givein. A plants ability to seed is not a right. Its what I just called it. An ability.  To further prove my point are you saying that plants that produce seedless grapes dont have the natural right to reproduce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already pointed out your lie.
> 
> What a load of dog poo.
> 
> THE WHOLE DAMN POINT OF A NATURAL RIGHT IS THAT IS NOT A GRANTED RIGHT.  YOU TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY BUT ALL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED SO THERE ARE NO NATURAL RIGHTS.  COMPLETE BULL SHIT.  UTTER LIE.
Click to expand...


I dont care what the point is.  I want you to prove to me I have a right without someone granting it to me natural or otherwise. You dont have to be emotional about this Brown.  Settle down and prove your point.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it possibly easier for you.
> 
> If a right is only a granted right then what happens with to the right when it becomes ungranted? Does it vanish into thin air? Or perhaps become an anti-right?  Are you trying to redraft the constitution to exclude all natural rights and replace them with your preferred list of anti-rights where we don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because they were never actually granted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A revoked right goes to the same place that inalienable/natural rights seem to dwell. The air.  What makes you think I am trying to redraft the constitution? Is that the source of you being so emotional and calling names?  Thats actually funny because I dont have one ounce of power to rewrite the constitution.  If I did want to rewrite the constitution to include a list of untouchable rights why would you be against that or would you?
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you miss my earlier discussion about the right to life liberty and property being taken away by the 14th amendment due process clause?
> 
> I believe the point of discussion was what was meant by the framers of this nation.  The Northern states took away our natural rights after the civil war.  From the realist perspective, we don't really have any rights left that can't be taken away "constitutionally" as long as it's deemed important to our Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably missed it because I was not aware it existed.  However you seem to have missed your own news flash with that bit of information.  How did the 14th amendment take away our inalienable rights if they are inalienable or natural?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.  How can you not understand the difference between a natural right to life, and some ass hole shooting your and your family?  How can you be so obtuse?
Click to expand...


I do understand the difference. My natural right to life is some unspecified thing hanging in the air that no one cares about or can see.  An asshole shooting me is breaking the law and transgressing on any granted right to life I may have written down somewhere.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it possibly easier for you.
> 
> If a right is only a granted right then what happens with to the right when it becomes ungranted? Does it vanish into thin air? Or perhaps become an anti-right?  Are you trying to redraft the constitution to exclude all natural rights and replace them with your preferred list of anti-rights where we don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because they were never actually granted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A revoked right goes to the same place that inalienable/natural rights seem to dwell. The air.  What makes you think I am trying to redraft the constitution? Is that the source of you being so emotional and calling names?  Thats actually funny because I dont have one ounce of power to rewrite the constitution.  If I did want to rewrite the constitution to include a list of untouchable rights why would you be against that or would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll.
Click to expand...


Can you help a troll out and answer my question?


----------



## dcraelin

Jefferson should have perhaps not used the word "rights" or called them unalienable. They
are more like natural instincts..the instinct of self-preservation.


he did say. 

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

most of his following points show how the King deprived the people of determining their own laws.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dilloduck said:


> Unicorns have one horn--everyone knows that right ?  I mean I've seen paintings and drawings of them everywhere. They even look the same from one country to the next thereby proving the universality of unicorns. Only a sociopath wouldn't have the compassion to admit that there is such a creature.



No.  Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense:  the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion.  Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.

You are refuted.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> As to seedless grapes.. Yeah the natural right to life of those plants has been destroyed by man.  Again as has been explained to you a hundred times, destroying a thing does not eliminate the fact that the grape plant has a natural right to life afforded by it's own inherent ability to grow seeded grapes.
> 
> That seedless grape plants require man perform manual functions to maintain the life of the plant outside the natural process is merely proof that man has the natural ability to come up with ways to destroy life.



Let me get this straight. You can destroy a natural or inalienable right and it still be there?  You further admit that the right came from the plants ability to reproduce?  So if the plant cant reproduce anymore how is the right still there especially since it has been destroyed?  All you are doing is claiming the effect of the ability has moral ramifications and calling them natural rights. Moral is a manmade construct.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unicorns have one horn--everyone knows that right ?  I mean I've seen paintings and drawings of them everywhere. They even look the same from one country to the next thereby proving the universality of unicorns. Only a sociopath wouldn't have the compassion to admit that there is such a creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense:  the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion.  Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
> 
> You are refuted.
Click to expand...



I thought you had left to start on your next book?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out my lie and please point out what terms i am redefining.  You just said it when you said a natural right cannot be granted.  How did it turn into a right if it cant be granted?  Inherent in the definition of a right is that it is something that is givein. A plants ability to seed is not a right. Its what I just called it. An ability.  To further prove my point are you saying that plants that produce seedless grapes dont have the natural right to reproduce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already pointed out your lie.
> 
> What a load of dog poo.
> 
> THE WHOLE DAMN POINT OF A NATURAL RIGHT IS THAT IS NOT A GRANTED RIGHT.  YOU TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY BUT ALL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED SO THERE ARE NO NATURAL RIGHTS.  COMPLETE BULL SHIT.  UTTER LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont care what the point is.  I want you to prove to me I have a right without someone granting it to me natural or otherwise. You dont have to be emotional about this Brown.  Settle down and prove your point.
Click to expand...


The point's been proven.

You have been found wanting.  You are incapable of understanding even basic concepts such as "natural rights" by definition do *NOT* require a grant.  Without puking up your repeated lies that natural rights are one of abilities, inalienable rights that have been taken away, or granted rights.  

Your three pronged attack on natural rights being 1) but it can be taken away so it's not inalienable, 2) it's a ability not a right, and 3) it's a granted right therefore not a natural right, really just makes you out to be a lying POS, a joke, an ass, a TROLL, perhaps satan worshiper. Every one of your statements is filled with bile. But you may take joy, as I suspect you do, in companionship with your fellow authoritarians who like you, don't believe anyone should have the natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness without first getting authorization from you and your ilk.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already pointed out your lie.
> 
> What a load of dog poo.
> 
> THE WHOLE DAMN POINT OF A NATURAL RIGHT IS THAT IS NOT A GRANTED RIGHT.  YOU TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY BUT ALL RIGHTS ARE GRANTED SO THERE ARE NO NATURAL RIGHTS.  COMPLETE BULL SHIT.  UTTER LIE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care what the point is.  I want you to prove to me I have a right without someone granting it to me natural or otherwise. You dont have to be emotional about this Brown.  Settle down and prove your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point's been proven.
> 
> You have been found wanting.  You are incapable of understanding even basic concepts such as "natural rights" by definition do *NOT* require a grant.  Without puking up your repeated lies that natural rights are one of abilities, inalienable rights that have been taken away, or granted rights.
> 
> Your three pronged attack on natural rights being 1) but it can be taken away so it's not inalienable, 2) it's a ability not a right, and 3) it's a granted right therefore not a natural right, really just makes you out to be a lying POS, a joke, an ass, a TROLL, perhaps satan worshiper. Every one of your statements is filled with bile. But you may take joy, as I suspect you do, in companionship with your fellow authoritarians who like you, don't believe anyone should have the natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness without first getting authorization from you and your ilk.
Click to expand...


No the point hasnt been proven. Thats why I am asking for proof.  You have yet to provide it.

I'm pretty sure I have been found by you to be wanting since I dont agree with the smokescreen you call natural or inalienable rights.  Its not that I dont want people to have natural rights, I want people to realize they need to protect their rights and not think some sky fairy is going bestow these rights upon them.  The moment people relax and think their rights (all of them) cant be taken away is the day your point of view will be proven incredibly naive and foolish.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to seedless grapes.. Yeah the natural right to life of those plants has been destroyed by man.  Again as has been explained to you a hundred times, destroying a thing does not eliminate the fact that the grape plant has a natural right to life afforded by it's own inherent ability to grow seeded grapes.
> 
> That seedless grape plants require man perform manual functions to maintain the life of the plant outside the natural process is merely proof that man has the natural ability to come up with ways to destroy life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You can destroy a natural or inalienable right and it still be there?  You further admit that the right came from the plants ability to reproduce?  So if the plant cant reproduce anymore how is the right still there especially since it has been destroyed?  All you are doing is claiming the effect of the ability has moral ramifications and calling them natural rights. Moral is a manmade construct.
Click to expand...


NO, NO, NO! 

You can destroy a thing, you can't destroy it's natural rights. The natural rights can't be touched or destroyed, only the physical body is destroyed when you burn it to death.  The right to life that that body had still exists. 

For example, if you murder someone, the reason we put you on trial for your murder is because the person you killed has a right to life, you took that person's life you violated his right to life.  Killing him did not take his right to life, it took his life.  

I just can't believe anyone could be so ignorant as to not understand this fundamental difference.  I suppose if you are a sociopath, that might explain the lack of understanding.


----------



## dilloduck

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care what the point is.  I want you to prove to me I have a right without someone granting it to me natural or otherwise. You dont have to be emotional about this Brown.  Settle down and prove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point's been proven.
> 
> You have been found wanting.  You are incapable of understanding even basic concepts such as "natural rights" by definition do *NOT* require a grant.  Without puking up your repeated lies that natural rights are one of abilities, inalienable rights that have been taken away, or granted rights.
> 
> Your three pronged attack on natural rights being 1) but it can be taken away so it's not inalienable, 2) it's a ability not a right, and 3) it's a granted right therefore not a natural right, really just makes you out to be a lying POS, a joke, an ass, a TROLL, perhaps satan worshiper. Every one of your statements is filled with bile. But you may take joy, as I suspect you do, in companionship with your fellow authoritarians who like you, don't believe anyone should have the natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness without first getting authorization from you and your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the point hasnt been proven. Thats why I am asking for proof.  You have yet to provide it.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have been found by you to be wanting since I dont agree with the smokescreen you call natural or inalienable rights.  Its not that I dont want people to have natural rights, I want people to realize they need to protect their rights and not think some sky fairy is going bestow these rights upon them.  The moment people relax and think their rights (all of them) cant be taken away is the day your point of view will be proven incredibly naive and foolish.
Click to expand...


additionally I don't want people thinking that they have all these fairy tale rights that I have to observe. Natural rights are man's invention. They only exist in his head.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unicorns have one horn--everyone knows that right ?  I mean I've seen paintings and drawings of them everywhere. They even look the same from one country to the next thereby proving the universality of unicorns. Only a sociopath wouldn't have the compassion to admit that there is such a creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense:  the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion.  Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you had left to start on your next book?
Click to expand...


Not quite, dilloduck showed up, the other who exhibits all the signs of sociopathy, even more obviously than you.  But, yes, now I'm done with this thread.  

P.S.  

Someone please explain to *dcraelin* that Jefferson could have written:  *"We hold these truths to be [axiomatic]* . . ." and not changed the meaning of the thought one bit.  An axiomatic thing and a self-evident thing are the very same kind of thing.  The terms are synonymously interchangeable.  _An axiom_ is _a maxim_, i.e., _a self-evident truth_.

Jesus.  Joseph!  Mary!


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to seedless grapes.. Yeah the natural right to life of those plants has been destroyed by man.  Again as has been explained to you a hundred times, destroying a thing does not eliminate the fact that the grape plant has a natural right to life afforded by it's own inherent ability to grow seeded grapes.
> 
> That seedless grape plants require man perform manual functions to maintain the life of the plant outside the natural process is merely proof that man has the natural ability to come up with ways to destroy life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight. You can destroy a natural or inalienable right and it still be there?  You further admit that the right came from the plants ability to reproduce?  So if the plant cant reproduce anymore how is the right still there especially since it has been destroyed?  All you are doing is claiming the effect of the ability has moral ramifications and calling them natural rights. Moral is a manmade construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, NO, NO!
> 
> You can destroy a thing, you can't destroy it's natural rights. The natural rights can't be touched or destroyed, only the physical body is destroyed when you burn it to death.  The right to life that that body had still exists.
> 
> For example, if you murder someone, the reason we put you on trial for your murder is because the person you killed has a right to life, you took that person's life you violated his right to life.  Killing him did not take his right to life, it took his life.
> 
> I just can't believe anyone could be so ignorant as to not understand this fundamental difference.  I suppose if you are a sociopath, that might explain the lack of understanding.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like a moral argument backed up by a law.  There is nothing natural or inalienable about that.  In other words these type of rights are pretty useless as well as being hard to pin down where they exist except in the human mind.  So what happens to the right when people get away with murder?  I am assuming you say it is still out there floating around somewhere and did not die with the victim?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *dblack*, are you paying attention?  I know you're not a sociopath.  I know the  signs.
> 
> It's only the very rare _psychopath_ that can actually grasp the essence of humanity in all of its facets, albeit, by the sheer logic of the matter alone.  It goes no deeper than that.  The rest of them, the rest of the garden variety sociopaths and psychopaths in nature can't, and they don't think there's anything wrong with them.
> 
> So what is going on in your head when you say that there are legitimate challenges to the proposition that natural rights exist?  Once again, it's _not_ possible to argue against any axiomatic proposition without proving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.
> 
> I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I  disagree with you.  That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point.  In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural.  They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.
Click to expand...


He is referring to you as a troll because you never actually address the points anyone else makes, and then you claim they didn't actually answer your questions.


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense:  the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion.  Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you had left to start on your next book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite, dilloduck showed up, the other who exhibits all the signs of sociopathy, even more obviously than you.  But, yes, now I'm done with this thread.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> Someone please explain to *dcraelin* that Jefferson could have written:  *"We hold these truths to be [axiomatic]* . . ." and not changed the meaning of the thought one bit.  An axiomatic thing and a self-evident thing are the very same kind of thing.  The terms are synonymously interchangeable.  _An axiom_ is _a maxim_, i.e., _a self-evident truth_.
> 
> Jesus.  Joseph!  Mary!
Click to expand...


If I could, I would grant you the rights to leave but I can't. You'll have to do it on your own or get govt protection.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of innate inalienable freedom is without question, in my view, on the very grounds you're citing. Natural rights theory gets into reasoning about which of those inalienable freedoms should be considered rights and that's where the potential for legitimate disagreement lies.
> 
> I don't believe the trolls here are attempting a serious critique; they're just stirring up shit and trying to derail the discussion with deliberate speciousness and strawmen. I think they're on a political campaign to undermine the idea of inalienable rights, probably because they want government to be the final authority over what we consider human rights, rather than the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your grasp of what I am doing is way off base if you are referring to me as a troll simply because I  disagree with you.  That is the weakest and flimsiest of excuses in your inability to prove your point.  In case you missed it the government has always been the final authority regarding any of your rights. You simply have no argument when you say natural rights exist because men said they do and call them natural.  They must be able to exist without the presence of man separate and alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is referring to you as a troll because you never actually address the points anyone else makes, and then you claim they didn't actually answer your questions.
Click to expand...


oh please--do things in nature act because they can or they have a right to ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then some people can't get at the essence of anything.
> 
> Funny.  That's not my experience at all, and that's not what history tells us either.  Relatively few of the agnostics and atheists of today ever give their metaphysics a second thought.  Most are not even aware of the actual nature of their presupposition.  Their belief is the stuff of slogans in a post-modern world.  On the other hand, I know a few agnostics and atheists very well who have no problem grasping the ramifications of human consciousness and, therefore, the implications regarding the potentiality of God's existence.
> 
> Now that's real agnosticism or atheism, which takes real balls.  Got to respect that.
> 
> There's a reason why most humans are theists, the same reason that most humans will always be theists.
> 
> I just don't think you're cable of scratching the itch out of that potentiality.  Something's missing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism.  Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity.   Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed.  The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness.  That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.
> 
> But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world.    So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.
> 
> Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind?  The way I see it of course they do.  But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept.  And oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
Click to expand...


There are 2000 posts in this thread, yet you insist that, because you refuse to read the proof, that no one has actually provided proof. Then you whinge about people not answering questions, even though we do, and claim that the fact that we refuse to repeat ourselves somehow proves we don't have any proof. 

Funny thing, you actually have no proof that exists anywhere outside your head that you are right. You make claims that are based on nothing but the evidence belief that you know what you are talking about, then ignore it when people ask you to explain why you actually believe that man are afraid of new things, you ignore the question.

In other words, your mind is closed.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only a troll or a sociopath would talk this sort of nonsense:  the troll as a matter of amusement, the sociopath as a matter of evasion.  Recall, the sociopath can only distinguish the superficial differences between things, but more to the point, he can't distinguish the differences between the essences of living things, let alone, in all but the very rare instance of psychopathy, make out the exact essence of living things in any sense that matters.
> 
> You are refuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you had left to start on your next book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite, dilloduck showed up, the other who exhibits all the signs of sociopathy, even more obviously than you.  But, yes, now I'm done with this thread.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> Someone please explain to *dcraelin* that Jefferson could have written:  *"We hold these truths to be [axiomatic]* . . ." and not changed the meaning of the thought one bit.  An axiomatic thing and a self-evident thing are the very same kind of thing.  The terms are synonymously interchangeable.  _An axiom_ is _a maxim_, i.e., _a self-evident truth_.
> 
> Jesus.  Joseph!  Mary!
Click to expand...


dcraelin

They mean the same thing.  "Because we agreed to assume this is true"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it exactly that man constructs?  Can he construct good?  Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct evil or harmful?  Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct captivity or freedom?  Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?
> 
> Of course humankind confers legal rights.  But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights.  Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.
> 
> The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth.  But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people.  And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.
> 
> The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights.  These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.
> 
> The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals are what man decides them to be
Click to expand...


Men control the morals of animals?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it exactly that man constructs?  Can he construct good?  Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct evil or harmful?  Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct captivity or freedom?  Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?
> 
> Of course humankind confers legal rights.  But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights.  Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.
> 
> The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth.  But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people.  And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.
> 
> The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights.  These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.
> 
> The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are what man decides them to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men control the morals of animals?
Click to expand...


I didnt' say that now did I ?  Read it again


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they were a man made construct besides,  YOU?  Who said no means, no?  Man?  If no is a man made construct How do you know no, does not mean yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RK... seriously. It's nothing new. They invent a stupid definition and then insist that others 'prove' their nonsense. When people try to correct them, they jump up and down, insisting their questions aren't being 'answered'. At that point, all you can do is ignore them. Or point and laugh, but that gets tedious after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get my definitions out of a dictionary.  Show me where I invented a definition. I'm not jumping up and down. i am asking for proof rights of any type existed without man defining them. Your inability to provide that proof in the face of the proof I provided to the contrary does not mean I am making up definitions.  Thats all you have to do is prove your point and educate me.
Click to expand...


I already did, I then asked you to explain why natural rights fits any known definition of oxymoron.

You replied by whinging about me being mean to you.


----------



## RKMBrown

Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people, often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights.  More particularly these good people will often defend the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the thing is, as I have used in examples of Spinoza and Einstein in discussions of intelligent design, reality does not necessarily include a belief in theism.  Both Spinoza and Einstei, based on their personal observations of the world around them, that it was reasonable to believe that some form of intelligence was guiding the process, but neither believed in any form of deity.   Nor did Plato who conceived of a concept of an eternal idea that has always existed.  The 'idea' remains obscured or unknown until our consciousness is able to comprehend it but it exists with or without our consciousness.  That was his concept of intelligent design as well as all that exists which, had he participated on this thread, would almost certainly have included a concept of natural rights.
> 
> But those anti-religionists and others who absolutely refuse to open their minds to certain concepts seem to occupy a very small, very limited world.    So their minds are closed to any concept beyond what they themselves experience.
> 
> Do rights exist apart from ordinances or decrees from humankind?  The way I see it of course they do.  But I accept that some here cannot grasp the concept.  And oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 2000 posts in this thread, yet you insist that, because you refuse to read the proof, that no one has actually provided proof. Then you whinge about people not answering questions, even though we do, and claim that the fact that we refuse to repeat ourselves somehow proves we don't have any proof.
> 
> Funny thing, you actually have no proof that exists anywhere outside your head that you are right. You make claims that are based on nothing but the evidence belief that you know what you are talking about, then ignore it when people ask you to explain why you actually believe that man are afraid of new things, you ignore the question.
> 
> In other words, your mind is closed.
Click to expand...


That just means 2000 - #of wrong posts = # of correct posts.  All your posts seem to be lodged squarely in the variable #of wrong posts.  Funny thing you claim I have no proof but have failed to provide even one example you are correct.  Prove to me natural/inalienable rights are not a man made construct.  Show me the place these rights reside other than in the minds of men. Show me a rock, dog, bear, tree that can show me their natural rights.  I was hoping you were smart enough to prove me wrong but I guess I was wrong.  Your anger over your inability to prove your point is funny as hell.  I started with an open mind but your feeble explanations are fast convincing me you have nothing.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it exactly that man constructs?  Can he construct good?  Or is good a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct evil or harmful?  Or is evil or harmful a reality whether or not man constructs it?  Can he construct captivity or freedom?  Or do these things exist whether or not he understands or is aware of it?
> 
> Of course humankind confers legal rights.  But legal rights are a totally different thing from unalienable rights.  Even civil rights are a different thing from unalienable rights.
> 
> The Founders and the great philosophers who informed them perceived that to be free to follow one's own nature, whatever that was, was the natural state of man as it is for all creatures on earth.  But because of his superior intellect, humankind is capable of intentionally limiting the freedom of other people.  And humankind is also capable of embracing and respecting what freedom is--the exercise of one's unalienable or natural rights, i.e. all that requires no contribution or participation by any other.
> 
> Such exists whether or not it is recognized, whether or not it is respected, whether or not it is understood, whether or not it is allowed or decreed by manmade law.
> 
> The Founders, to a man, understood this and determined that only a man who governs himself enjoys the blessings of liberty, i.e. unalienable rights.  These were defined but not limited to examples expresssed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, and the purpose was to prevent the federal government from ever having power to infringe the unalienable rights of the people that existed prior to and apart from government and to secure those unalienable rights from enemies who would take them from us.
> 
> The Constitution was designed to limit all powers of the federal government and afford the people full liberty to govern themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are what man decides them to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men control the morals of animals?
Click to expand...


Men pretend to know what the animal is thinking and calls that behavior morals.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights, and the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.



Have you seen anyone here stomp on anyone's "rights" ? Have you seen anyone here encouraging people to stomp on people's "rights" ?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about refusing to open ones mind. its about you guys being able to provide the proof that natural rights are not the construct of man. I actually believe there is an intelligent force that created all things.  The fact that I have that belief means nothing. The problem is that it cannot be proven.  However, it can be proven that men make up rights natural or otherwise. They do it all the time. Supporting that argument is the fact men throughout history have been known to play on the emotions of the masses by using words that elicit emotional responses. "Inalienable rights" or "natural rights" are way more emotional than your "abilities". "Abilities" put the onus on the individual to do some work.  Rights, especially natural or inalienable ones make you feel righteous (hmmm) and are already there requiring no work be done to have them. That in my opinion is stupid because if you don't work to keep your rights then you can lose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2000 posts in this thread, yet you insist that, because you refuse to read the proof, that no one has actually provided proof. Then you whinge about people not answering questions, even though we do, and claim that the fact that we refuse to repeat ourselves somehow proves we don't have any proof.
> 
> Funny thing, you actually have no proof that exists anywhere outside your head that you are right. You make claims that are based on nothing but the evidence belief that you know what you are talking about, then ignore it when people ask you to explain why you actually believe that man are afraid of new things, you ignore the question.
> 
> In other words, your mind is closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That just means 2000 - #of wrong posts = # of correct posts.  All your posts seem to be lodged squarely in the variable #of wrong posts.  Funny thing you claim I have no proof but have failed to provide even one example you are correct.  Prove to me natural/inalienable rights are not a man made construct.  Show me the place these rights reside other than in the minds of men. Show me a rock, dog, bear, tree that can show me their natural rights.  I was hoping you were smart enough to prove me wrong but I guess I was wrong.  Your anger over your inability to prove your point is funny as hell.  I started with an open mind but your feeble explanations are fast convincing me you have nothing.
Click to expand...


How would you know if my posts are wrong when you admit you haven't read them? 

Like I said, closed mind.

By the way, that was me proving my point.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people, often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights.  More particularly these good people will often defend the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.



Now you are going off into left field with accusations veiled as a general comment. I can respect the reason people feel they have natural or inalienable rights.  I just dont think that belief is necessary.  I dont believe I have a right to life but the first person that would attempt to take my life would quickly find out its the same thing. I just happen to be realist about it. Same goes for my family and friends. I think a person with my mindset is going to be extra vigilant that my ability to defend myself is not hampered.  That goes for all the things I consider within my ability to defend that you call rights.  I dont want to take your love for life. I want to open your eyes so you are not sitting ducks.


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights, and the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen anyone here stomp on anyone's "rights" ? Have you seen anyone here encouraging people to stomp on people's "rights" ?
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


To deny that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is to stomp on these rights.  It is the same as urinating on the efforts of all the fighting men who fought so valiantly so that we could live in a country where rights are celebrated and defended not derided and laughed at as this President does and as so many have done in this thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals are what man decides them to be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men control the morals of animals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men pretend to know what the animal is thinking and calls that behavior morals.
Click to expand...


Yet, despite your assertion that they are wrong, you haven't actually dug into the articles I posted and explained where they screwed up their methodology. 

Nonetheless, we are supposed to believe that you are right simply because you say you are right.


----------



## dilloduck

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights, and the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen anyone here stomp on anyone's "rights" ? Have you seen anyone here encouraging people to stomp on people's "rights" ?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deny that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is to stomp on these rights.  It is the same as urinating on the efforts of all the fighting men who fought so valiantly so that we could live in a country where rights are celebrated and defended not derided and laughed at as this President does and as so many have done in this thread.
Click to expand...


Wrong but dramatic is hell. No one's rights have been touched.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men control the morals of animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men pretend to know what the animal is thinking and calls that behavior morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, despite your assertion that they are wrong, you haven't actually dug into the articles I posted and explained where they screwed up their methodology.
> 
> Nonetheless, we are supposed to believe that you are right simply because you say you are right.
Click to expand...


And we are supposed to believe you because you posted articles ?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights, and the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen anyone here stomp on anyone's "rights" ? Have you seen anyone here encouraging people to stomp on people's "rights" ?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To deny that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is to stomp on these rights.  It is the same as urinating on the efforts of all the fighting men who fought so valiantly so that we could live in a country where rights are celebrated and defended not derided and laughed at as this President does and as so many have done in this thread.
Click to expand...


You sound like a drama queen complete with the star spangled banner playing in the back ground.  Its a concept for you to rally around and feel part of a group. it provides a mission and uniting goal. Personally I dont need anyone yanking my chain to make me get off my ass and protect myself and my country.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men pretend to know what the animal is thinking and calls that behavior morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, despite your assertion that they are wrong, you haven't actually dug into the articles I posted and explained where they screwed up their methodology.
> 
> Nonetheless, we are supposed to believe that you are right simply because you say you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to believe you because you posted articles ?
Click to expand...


No, you are supposed to examine the evidence and form your own conclusion. 

See what I did there, I actually pointed out another reason you are wrong, you don't have any evidence to back up anything you say, and you ignore all the evidence that contradicts your position.

The difference is that you and Asclepias is you are just being a troll, he is actually close minded.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people, often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights.  More particularly these good people will often defend the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are going off into left field with accusations veiled as a general comment. I can respect the reason people feel they have natural or inalienable rights.  I just dont think that belief is necessary.  I dont believe I have a right to life but the first person that would attempt to take my life would quickly find out its the same thing. I just happen to be realist about it. Same goes for my family and friends. I think a person with my mindset is going to be extra vigilant that my ability to defend myself is not hampered.  That goes for all the things I consider within my ability to defend that you call rights.  I dont want to take your love for life. I want to open your eyes so you are not sitting ducks.
Click to expand...


When I say, we have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  I don't mean that we are entitled to be provided said natural rights.  Just the opposite, I mean these rights are the ones worth fighting for.  So called rights like the entitlement to health insurance.. entitlement to food stamps, ... ROFL those things are not worth fighting for at all.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen anyone here stomp on anyone's "rights" ? Have you seen anyone here encouraging people to stomp on people's "rights" ?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To deny that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is to stomp on these rights.  It is the same as urinating on the efforts of all the fighting men who fought so valiantly so that we could live in a country where rights are celebrated and defended not derided and laughed at as this President does and as so many have done in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a drama queen complete with the star spangled banner playing in the back ground.  Its a concept for you to rally around and feel part of a group. it provides a mission and uniting goal. Personally I dont need anyone yanking my chain to make me get off my ass and protect myself and my country.
Click to expand...


What do you have against the stars and stripes?  Why would you protect your country, if you hate it so?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether someone respects other's natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness absolutely defines what kind of person that person is.  People who deride these natural rights as useless favoring unnatural rights, such as the unnatural right to make slaves of people, often forget that just because the natural rights are not written down or defended by their tyrannical government does not mean the people won't defend their natural rights.  More particularly these good people will often defend the natural rights of their friends, families, neighbors, and countrymen to the death.  You can pay government employees to take our lives from us but you can't take our freedom, you can't take our love for life, you can't take our desire for something better than the crumbs of leftovers from the fruits of our labors that you offer us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are going off into left field with accusations veiled as a general comment. I can respect the reason people feel they have natural or inalienable rights.  I just dont think that belief is necessary.  I dont believe I have a right to life but the first person that would attempt to take my life would quickly find out its the same thing. I just happen to be realist about it. Same goes for my family and friends. I think a person with my mindset is going to be extra vigilant that my ability to defend myself is not hampered.  That goes for all the things I consider within my ability to defend that you call rights.  I dont want to take your love for life. I want to open your eyes so you are not sitting ducks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I say, we have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  I don't mean that we are entitled to be provided said natural rights.  Just the opposite, I mean these rights are the ones worth fighting for.  So called rights like the entitlement to health insurance.. entitlement to food stamps, ... ROFL those things are not worth fighting for at all.
Click to expand...


I dont see what the difference is except those rights are more specifically defined. As a matter of fact they fit very neatly under the heading right to life.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deny that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is to stomp on these rights.  It is the same as urinating on the efforts of all the fighting men who fought so valiantly so that we could live in a country where rights are celebrated and defended not derided and laughed at as this President does and as so many have done in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a drama queen complete with the star spangled banner playing in the back ground.  Its a concept for you to rally around and feel part of a group. it provides a mission and uniting goal. Personally I dont need anyone yanking my chain to make me get off my ass and protect myself and my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you have against the stars and stripes?  Why would you protect your country, if you hate it so?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
Click to expand...


Who said I have something against the star spangled banner?


----------



## RKMBrown

dilloduck said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen anyone here stomp on anyone's "rights" ? Have you seen anyone here encouraging people to stomp on people's "rights" ?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To deny that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is to stomp on these rights.  It is the same as urinating on the efforts of all the fighting men who fought so valiantly so that we could live in a country where rights are celebrated and defended not derided and laughed at as this President does and as so many have done in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong but dramatic is hell. No one's rights have been touched.
Click to expand...

The rights themselves have not been touched, but the laws protecting same have been "modified" to allow all manner of criminal acts to be committed in the name of this or that by this government.  What kind of country are we handing over to our kids?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a drama queen complete with the star spangled banner playing in the back ground.  Its a concept for you to rally around and feel part of a group. it provides a mission and uniting goal. Personally I dont need anyone yanking my chain to make me get off my ass and protect myself and my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against the stars and stripes?  Why would you protect your country, if you hate it so?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I have something against the star spangled banner?
Click to expand...


Why would you protect your country?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?

What right do you have to lift a finger to defend it? Who gave you that right? Can they take it away from you?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> To deny that we have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is to stomp on these rights.  It is the same as urinating on the efforts of all the fighting men who fought so valiantly so that we could live in a country where rights are celebrated and defended not derided and laughed at as this President does and as so many have done in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong but dramatic is hell. No one's rights have been touched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rights themselves have not been touched, but the laws protecting same have been "modified" to allow all manner of criminal acts to be committed in the name of this or that by this government.  What kind of country are we handing over to our kids?
Click to expand...


You say that but you dont see this is the danger in saying unalienable/natural rights?  You don't see how a specified list of untouchable rights would be better?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are going off into left field with accusations veiled as a general comment. I can respect the reason people feel they have natural or inalienable rights.  I just dont think that belief is necessary.  I dont believe I have a right to life but the first person that would attempt to take my life would quickly find out its the same thing. I just happen to be realist about it. Same goes for my family and friends. I think a person with my mindset is going to be extra vigilant that my ability to defend myself is not hampered.  That goes for all the things I consider within my ability to defend that you call rights.  I dont want to take your love for life. I want to open your eyes so you are not sitting ducks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say, we have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  I don't mean that we are entitled to be provided said natural rights.  Just the opposite, I mean these rights are the ones worth fighting for.  So called rights like the entitlement to health insurance.. entitlement to food stamps, ... ROFL those things are not worth fighting for at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont see what the difference is except those rights are more specifically defined. As a matter of fact they fit very neatly under the heading right to life.
Click to expand...


So you'd die fighting for your entitlement to collect food stamps?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against the stars and stripes?  Why would you protect your country, if you hate it so?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I have something against the star spangled banner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you protect your country?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
> 
> What right do you have to lift a finger to defend it? Who gave you that right? Can they take it away from you?
Click to expand...


You forgot to tell me who said I had a problem with the star spangled banner?

I would protect my country because this is where i live.  If I lived in Senegal I would feel the same way.

Why would having the right or not having the right stop me from defending myself or my country?  This is the danger of waiting around for rights. Apathy.  I dont need rights to defend myself or what i hold as important.  I'll deal with the legal or natural courts after I finish protecting myself if someone claims I didnt have the right.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I say, we have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  I don't mean that we are entitled to be provided said natural rights.  Just the opposite, I mean these rights are the ones worth fighting for.  So called rights like the entitlement to health insurance.. entitlement to food stamps, ... ROFL those things are not worth fighting for at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see what the difference is except those rights are more specifically defined. As a matter of fact they fit very neatly under the heading right to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd die fighting for your entitlement to collect food stamps?
Click to expand...


Not my right because I dont need them but for others yes.

Edit ....

Actually I take that back. I would fight for my entitlement as well.  I pay taxes.


----------



## Foxfyre

NYcarbineer said:


> So, to the natural rights crowd...
> 
> Is marriage a natural right?



Only if it requires no contribution or participation by any other and involves only the two who wish to marry.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong but dramatic is hell. No one's rights have been touched.
> 
> 
> 
> The rights themselves have not been touched, but the laws protecting same have been "modified" to allow all manner of criminal acts to be committed in the name of this or that by this government.  What kind of country are we handing over to our kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that but you dont see this is the danger in saying unalienable/natural rights?  You don't see how a specified list of untouchable rights would be better?
Click to expand...


There was nothing wrong with the language used.  Untouchable, unalienable, natural, god given immutable, it does not matter what language you throw in the issue is and will remain the same.  There will always be a group of people all to eager to achieve personal gain by voting to have someone other than themselves harmed.  Those people won't care if it means pretending the emperor is wearing clothes, whether the patriot act is actually "patriotic" whether the affordable health care act is actually "affordable."  

The same people that argue due process means taking what we want to save the turtles will use the same arguments to take all your income to protect their paychecks.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see what the difference is except those rights are more specifically defined. As a matter of fact they fit very neatly under the heading right to life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd die fighting for your entitlement to collect food stamps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my right because I dont need them but for others yes.
> 
> Edit ....
> 
> Actually I take that back. I would fight for my entitlement as well.  I pay taxes.
Click to expand...


And there in lies the real issue.  I would give my life to take away your so called entitlement to my children's income, to turn my children into slaves for your food stamp entitlement program.  And you would give your life for the liberty to make slaves of my children.  IOW we are not just talking differences in definitions of words.  We are talking about fundamental differences in our views of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  IMO folks like you are lovers of death, destruction, theft, enslavement... cause all these things give you some small measure of security.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rights themselves have not been touched, but the laws protecting same have been "modified" to allow all manner of criminal acts to be committed in the name of this or that by this government.  What kind of country are we handing over to our kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that but you dont see this is the danger in saying unalienable/natural rights?  You don't see how a specified list of untouchable rights would be better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the language used.  Untouchable, unalienable, natural, god given immutable, it does not matter what language you throw in the issue is and will remain the same.  There will always be a group of people all to eager to achieve personal gain by voting to have someone other than themselves harmed.  Those people won't care if it means pretending the emperor is wearing clothes, whether the patriot act is actually "patriotic" whether the affordable health care act is actually "affordable."
> 
> The same people that argue due process means taking what we want to save the turtles will use the same arguments to take all your income to protect their paychecks.
Click to expand...


I'm surprised you dont have a problem with that ambiguity of the language of right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Technically you can be a slave and still fit in this dynamic depending on who is interpreting it.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, despite your assertion that they are wrong, you haven't actually dug into the articles I posted and explained where they screwed up their methodology.
> 
> Nonetheless, we are supposed to believe that you are right simply because you say you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to believe you because you posted articles ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are supposed to examine the evidence and form your own conclusion.
> 
> See what I did there, I actually pointed out another reason you are wrong, yo don't have any evidence to back up anything you say, and you ignore all the evidence that contradicts your postion.
> 
> The difference is that you and Asclepias is you are just being a troll, he is actually close minded.
Click to expand...


Hold it right there----a negative cannot be proven and that is what you are asking---but you know that.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd die fighting for your entitlement to collect food stamps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my right because I dont need them but for others yes.
> 
> Edit ....
> 
> Actually I take that back. I would fight for my entitlement as well.  I pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there in lies the real issue.  I would give my life to take away your so called entitlement to my children's income to turn them into slaves for your food stamp entitlements, and you would give your life for the liberty to make slaves of my children.
Click to expand...


Did the same person that told you I had a problem with the star spangled banner tell you i wanted to enslave your children?  You better catch this person and ask for clarification.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I have something against the star spangled banner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you protect your country?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
> 
> What right do you have to lift a finger to defend it? Who gave you that right? Can they take it away from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to tell me who said I had a problem with the star spangled banner?
> 
> I would protect my country because this is where i live.  If I lived in Senegal I would feel the same way.
> 
> Why would having the right or not having the right stop me from defending myself or my country?  This is the danger of waiting around for rights. Apathy.  I dont need rights to defend myself or what i hold as important.  I'll deal with the legal or natural courts after I finish protecting myself if someone claims I didnt have the right.
Click to expand...


So far all you've held important is the country you live in, no matter where that is, and what entitlements you can get out of living in it, oh yeah and something about self preservation.  

I can honestly say, without hesitation, that I would never share a beer with you or anyone else like you.  Your "that guy" who no one would ever want to share a fox hole with. But thanks for being honest.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

For *dblack's* sake, I have got to respond to this, though I have no more to say to those whose minds are closed to the ramifications of human consciousness, either as a matter of sociopathy, pride or trolling, and that is _not_ a personal attack as such, merely a statement of fact.

*dblack*, there is absolutely nothing spiritual about the facts of natural law.  Clear the cobwebs of post-modern sloganeering from your mind; they're obscuring the reality of things for you. The imperatives of the Golden Rule just are . . . *in nature*!

*Are you saying you don't understand that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong?  More to the point, are you saying you would have another murder or oppress or rob you?*

Start there, and stay there as long as it takes to sink in.  Forget the rest for now.

What is esoteric or mystical about that?

What's hurting your head are the esoteric and mystical roadblocks of relativism's inscrutable mumbo jumbo:  they are standing between you and the apprehension of the reality in which you live.

Why would any sensible person give a hoot about an inscrutable distinction that would make no difference to us in everyday reality?  There exists for us no means by which to quantify it, let alone qualify it.  Use your wits and bear down on reality as it is for us.  There's already more than enough complexity in that, enough to boggle the mind for eternity.  Why do you make things harder than they are?

*Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*

*Foxfyre* is wrong to say that natural rights have nothing to do with morals; they have everything to do with morals as bottomed on the of reality of human (sentient) nature.  What's the first principle of morality with regard to natural rights?  Knowing where your rights end, for that is the point at which another's begin.

The moral distinction between a genuine _right_ and an _ability_ is the same moral distinction between _natural rights_ and _government tyranny_ stomping all over the former under the guise of _civil protections_.  But to be fair to her, I'm pretty sure she was speaking in a different context as she just made the same point to another, effectively, regarding this very moral distinction. 

Also, natural law is not religious in any supernatural or theistic sense at all as bottomed on nature.

However, it is not unreasonable to say that natural law is natural religion, but not in the sense that's clouding your thinking at all.  

Besides, my occasional allusions to nature being ultimately grounded in an eternally self-subsistent and, therefore, transcendent reality beyond the same is not religious as such, but ontological.  If those allusions are causing you to confuse the facts of nature in this regard, disregard them for now.  They're not immediately relevant, just instructive. 

But like I said, just concentrate on the following for now:  

*You know that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you know that you would not have another murder or oppress or rob you.

Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*

Grasp that and you're on your way.


----------



## NYcarbineer

RKMBrown said:


> I'll make it possibly easier for you.
> 
> If a right is only a granted right then what happens with to the right when it becomes ungranted? Does it vanish into thin air? Or perhaps become an anti-right?  Are you trying to redraft the constitution to exclude all natural rights and replace them with your preferred list of anti-rights where we don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because they were never actually granted?



You tell me.  If Roe v Wade were overturned and the right to an abortion was 'ungranted',

what happens to the right to an abortion?


----------



## dilloduck

M.D. Rawlings said:


> For *dblack's* sake, I have got to respond to this, though I have no more to say to those whose minds are closed to the ramifications of human consciousness, either as a matter of sociopathy, pride or trolling, and that is _not_ a personal attack as such, merely a statement of fact.
> 
> *dblack*, there is absolutely nothing spiritual about the facts of natural law.  Clear the cobwebs of post-modern sloganeering from your mind; they're obscuring the reality of things for you. The imperatives of the Golden Rule just are . . . *in nature*!
> 
> *Are you saying you don't understand that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong?  More to the point, are you saying you would have another murder or oppress or rob you?*
> 
> Start there, and stay there as long as it takes to sink in.  Forget the rest for now.
> 
> What is esoteric or mystical about that?
> 
> What's hurting your head are the esoteric and mystical roadblocks of relativism's inscrutable mumbo jumbo:  they are standing between you and the apprehension of the reality in which you live.
> 
> Why would any sensible person give a hoot about an inscrutable distinction that would make no difference to us in everyday reality?  There exists for us no means by which to quantify it, let alone qualify it.  Use your wits and bear down on reality as it is for us.  There's already more than enough complexity in that, enough to boggle the mind for eternity.  Why do you make things harder than they are?
> 
> *Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*
> 
> *Foxfyre* is wrong to say that natural rights have nothing to do with morals; they have everything to do with morals as bottomed on the of reality of human (sentient) nature.  What's the first principle of morality with regard to natural rights?  Knowing where your rights end, for that is the point at which another's begin.
> 
> The moral distinction between a genuine _right_ and an _ability_ is the same moral distinction between _natural rights_ and _government tyranny_ stomping all over the former under the guise of _civil protections_.  But to be fair to her, I'm pretty sure she was speaking in a different context as she just made the same point to another, effectively, regarding this very moral distinction.
> 
> Also, natural law is not religious in any supernatural or theistic sense at all as bottomed on nature.
> 
> However, it is not unreasonable to say that natural law is natural religion, but not in the sense that's clouding your thinking at all.
> 
> Besides, my occasional allusions to nature being ultimately grounded in an eternally subsistent and, therefore, transcendent reality beyond the same is not religious as such, but ontological.  If those allusions are causing you to confuse the facts of nature in this regard, disregard them for now.  They're not immediately relevant, just instructive.
> 
> But like I said, just concentrate on the following for now:
> 
> *You know that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you know that you would not have another murder or oppress or rob you.
> 
> Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*
> 
> Grasp that and you're on your way.



Humans decide what's good and bad----right and wrong and make laws so that those things are secured.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are going off into left field with accusations veiled as a general comment. I can respect the reason people feel they have natural or inalienable rights.  I just dont think that belief is necessary.  I dont believe I have a right to life but the first person that would attempt to take my life would quickly find out its the same thing. I just happen to be realist about it. Same goes for my family and friends. I think a person with my mindset is going to be extra vigilant that my ability to defend myself is not hampered.  That goes for all the things I consider within my ability to defend that you call rights.  I dont want to take your love for life. I want to open your eyes so you are not sitting ducks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I say, we have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.  I don't mean that we are entitled to be provided said natural rights.  Just the opposite, I mean these rights are the ones worth fighting for.  So called rights like the entitlement to health insurance.. entitlement to food stamps, ... ROFL those things are not worth fighting for at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont see what the difference is except those rights are more specifically defined. As a matter of fact they fit very neatly under the heading right to life.
Click to expand...


Because the right to life means that other people have to provide for you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong but dramatic is hell. No one's rights have been touched.
> 
> 
> 
> The rights themselves have not been touched, but the laws protecting same have been "modified" to allow all manner of criminal acts to be committed in the name of this or that by this government.  What kind of country are we handing over to our kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that but you dont see this is the danger in saying unalienable/natural rights?  You don't see how a specified list of untouchable rights would be better?
Click to expand...


What possible danger is there in saying unalienable rights?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I have something against the star spangled banner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you protect your country?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
> 
> What right do you have to lift a finger to defend it? Who gave you that right? Can they take it away from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to tell me who said I had a problem with the star spangled banner?
> 
> I would protect my country because this is where i live.  If I lived in Senegal I would feel the same way.
> 
> Why would having the right or not having the right stop me from defending myself or my country?  This is the danger of waiting around for rights. Apathy.  I dont need rights to defend myself or what i hold as important.  I'll deal with the legal or natural courts after I finish protecting myself if someone claims I didnt have the right.
Click to expand...


You give your allegiance based on nothing more than where you were born? Did you know that they have a word for that? 

What possible moral or legal justification would you have for fighting if the government told you you don't have the right to defend yourself?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rights themselves have not been touched, but the laws protecting same have been "modified" to allow all manner of criminal acts to be committed in the name of this or that by this government.  What kind of country are we handing over to our kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that but you dont see this is the danger in saying unalienable/natural rights?  You don't see how a specified list of untouchable rights would be better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What possible danger is there in saying unalienable rights?
Click to expand...


It dumbs down Americans. As if the liberals haven't dumbed us down enough already. They will come to believe that life, liberty etc cannot be taken away from them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that but you dont see this is the danger in saying unalienable/natural rights?  You don't see how a specified list of untouchable rights would be better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the language used.  Untouchable, unalienable, natural, god given immutable, it does not matter what language you throw in the issue is and will remain the same.  There will always be a group of people all to eager to achieve personal gain by voting to have someone other than themselves harmed.  Those people won't care if it means pretending the emperor is wearing clothes, whether the patriot act is actually "patriotic" whether the affordable health care act is actually "affordable."
> 
> The same people that argue due process means taking what we want to save the turtles will use the same arguments to take all your income to protect their paychecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm surprised you dont have a problem with that ambiguity of the language of right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Technically you can be a slave and still fit in this dynamic depending on who is interpreting it.
Click to expand...



Under your interpretation no one has any rights at all, why is it better?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to believe you because you posted articles ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are supposed to examine the evidence and form your own conclusion.
> 
> See what I did there, I actually pointed out another reason you are wrong, yo don't have any evidence to back up anything you say, and you ignore all the evidence that contradicts your postion.
> 
> The difference is that you and Asclepias is you are just being a troll, he is actually close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold it right there----a negative cannot be proven and that is what you are asking---but you know that.
Click to expand...


I can prove a negative, why can't you?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you protect your country?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
> 
> What right do you have to lift a finger to defend it? Who gave you that right? Can they take it away from you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to tell me who said I had a problem with the star spangled banner?
> 
> I would protect my country because this is where i live.  If I lived in Senegal I would feel the same way.
> 
> Why would having the right or not having the right stop me from defending myself or my country?  This is the danger of waiting around for rights. Apathy.  I dont need rights to defend myself or what i hold as important.  I'll deal with the legal or natural courts after I finish protecting myself if someone claims I didnt have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give your allegiance based on nothing more than where you were born? Did you know that they have a word for that?
> 
> What possible moral or legal justification would you have for fighting if the government told you you don't have the right to defend yourself?
Click to expand...


Self preservation isn't a good enough reason ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my right because I dont need them but for others yes.
> 
> Edit ....
> 
> Actually I take that back. I would fight for my entitlement as well.  I pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there in lies the real issue.  I would give my life to take away your so called entitlement to my children's income to turn them into slaves for your food stamp entitlements, and you would give your life for the liberty to make slaves of my children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the same person that told you I had a problem with the star spangled banner tell you i wanted to enslave your children?  You better catch this person and ask for clarification.
Click to expand...


Are you saying your account was hacked? Again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to tell me who said I had a problem with the star spangled banner?
> 
> I would protect my country because this is where i live.  If I lived in Senegal I would feel the same way.
> 
> Why would having the right or not having the right stop me from defending myself or my country?  This is the danger of waiting around for rights. Apathy.  I dont need rights to defend myself or what i hold as important.  I'll deal with the legal or natural courts after I finish protecting myself if someone claims I didnt have the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You give your allegiance based on nothing more than where you were born? Did you know that they have a word for that?
> 
> What possible moral or legal justification would you have for fighting if the government told you you don't have the right to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self preservation isn't a good enough reason ?
Click to expand...


Not if no one has any rights.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you protect your country?  Selfish reasons only?  To what purpose would you defend this country?
> 
> What right do you have to lift a finger to defend it? Who gave you that right? Can they take it away from you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to tell me who said I had a problem with the star spangled banner?
> 
> I would protect my country because this is where i live.  If I lived in Senegal I would feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would having the right or not having the right stop me from defending myself or my country?  This is the danger of waiting around for rights. Apathy.  I dont need rights to defend myself or what i hold as important.  I'll deal with the legal or natural courts after I finish protecting myself if someone claims I didnt have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far all you've held important is the country you live in, no matter where that is, and what entitlements you can get out of living in it, oh yeah and something about self preservation.
> 
> I can honestly say, without hesitation, that I would never share a beer with you or anyone else like you.  Your "that guy" who no one would ever want to share a fox hole with. But thanks for being honest.
Click to expand...


Thats ok. You are entitled to feel that way.  Obviously when you get emotional you have a hard time with reading comprehension.


----------



## Asclepias

M.D. Rawlings said:


> For *dblack's* sake, I have got to respond to this, though I have no more to say to those whose minds are closed to the ramifications of human consciousness, either as a matter of sociopathy, pride or trolling, and that is _not_ a personal attack as such, merely a statement of fact.
> 
> *dblack*, there is absolutely nothing spiritual about the facts of natural law.  Clear the cobwebs of post-modern sloganeering from your mind; they're obscuring the reality of things for you. The imperatives of the Golden Rule just are . . . *in nature*!
> 
> *Are you saying you don't understand that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong?  More to the point, are you saying you would have another murder or oppress or rob you?*
> 
> Start there, and stay there as long as it takes to sink in.  Forget the rest for now.
> 
> What is esoteric or mystical about that?
> 
> What's hurting your head are the esoteric and mystical roadblocks of relativism's inscrutable mumbo jumbo:  they are standing between you and the apprehension of the reality in which you live.
> 
> Why would any sensible person give a hoot about an inscrutable distinction that would make no difference to us in everyday reality?  There exists for us no means by which to quantify it, let alone qualify it.  Use your wits and bear down on reality as it is for us.  There's already more than enough complexity in that, enough to boggle the mind for eternity.  Why do you make things harder than they are?
> 
> *Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*
> 
> *Foxfyre* is wrong to say that natural rights have nothing to do with morals; they have everything to do with morals as bottomed on the of reality of human (sentient) nature.  What's the first principle of morality with regard to natural rights?  Knowing where your rights end, for that is the point at which another's begin.
> 
> The moral distinction between a genuine _right_ and an _ability_ is the same moral distinction between _natural rights_ and _government tyranny_ stomping all over the former under the guise of _civil protections_.  But to be fair to her, I'm pretty sure she was speaking in a different context as she just made the same point to another, effectively, regarding this very moral distinction.
> 
> Also, natural law is not religious in any supernatural or theistic sense at all as bottomed on nature.
> 
> However, it is not unreasonable to say that natural law is natural religion, but not in the sense that's clouding your thinking at all.
> 
> Besides, my occasional allusions to nature being ultimately grounded in an eternally subsistent and, therefore, transcendent reality beyond the same is not religious as such, but ontological.  If those allusions are causing you to confuse the facts of nature in this regard, disregard them for now.  They're not immediately relevant, just instructive.
> 
> But like I said, just concentrate on the following for now:
> 
> *You know that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you know that you would not have another murder or oppress or rob you.
> 
> Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*
> 
> Grasp that and you're on your way.



Forgive me but thats a bunch of hogwash.  You feel murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.  You can visualize the consequences and out of fear you protect yourself from the possibility regardless of if you have rights or not.  If someone comes along and tells you there are some rights to help you out with you protecting yourself, you now feel validated and the more rights the merrier. If you feel you are in a position to do this to someone else because the reward is sufficient enough or the risk is non existent then people do and have done it to others. The same founding fathers that claimed we had these rights had no problem with slavery and forceful take over of Native American land.  Explain that for me if you can.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give your allegiance based on nothing more than where you were born? Did you know that they have a word for that?
> 
> What possible moral or legal justification would you have for fighting if the government told you you don't have the right to defend yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self preservation isn't a good enough reason ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if no one has any rights.
Click to expand...


Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self preservation isn't a good enough reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if no one has any rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
Click to expand...


Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if no one has any rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
Click to expand...

 
Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if no one has any rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
Click to expand...


I guess you did not read your own link.  A camera caught the guy. Lets be specific so you cant insert another silly diversion. If you are killed where there are no witnesses or cameras what are your rights going to do for you?


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
> not the victim
Click to expand...


Quantum has to create diversions.  He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk.  Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean.  For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.


----------



## midcan5

Asclepias said:


> Quantum has to create diversions.  He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk.  Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean.  For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.



Quantum's debate is inside his head, it's funny watching him come back with some irrelevancy that means something only he sees.

=======

I started to reply a few days ago but got busy and this thread keeps growing and I lost the post I was replying to.  Anyway a few comments:

Free speech is not free speech it involves consequences and it often involves capital. 
Rights are based on something valued, values are constructs.
Natural selection is an amoral process and thus inconsistent with natural rights.
If a God is the source of rights then rights cannot be natural but inspired or created by a divinity. 
If you assume NR exist and they apply to all humans you have lots of splainin to do.
If rights are natural what use are they in relation to real life and not simply debate.
Another argument against natural rights is rights change and have changed often over time.
Rights come from law and law is often a debate. 

"Right is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters."  Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
> not the victim
Click to expand...


Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you did not read your own link.  A camera caught the guy. Lets be specific so you cant insert another silly diversion. If you are killed where there are no witnesses or cameras what are your rights going to do for you?
Click to expand...


I guess you think I didn't look for a link where cameras caught a killer because I happen to know of a few cases where a camera set up by a victim caught the murder on tape and ended up with a conviction. Lets be specific, you were wrong, and don't want to admit it, so you are moving the goal posts. 

As usual.

Just an FYI, that is a tactic used by losers, not people making a point.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
> not the victim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.
Click to expand...




> but video collected from more than 50 private and public cameras



try again ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
> not the victim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quantum has to create diversions.  He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk.  Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean.  For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.
Click to expand...


Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?

Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
> not the victim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum has to create diversions.  He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk.  Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean.  For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?
> 
> Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.
Click to expand...


Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible in you world, not mine.
> 
> Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek
> 
> FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you did not read your own link.  A camera caught the guy. Lets be specific so you cant insert another silly diversion. If you are killed where there are no witnesses or cameras what are your rights going to do for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you think I didn't look for a link where cameras caught a killer because I happen to know of a few cases where a camera set up by a victim caught the murder on tape and ended up with a conviction. Lets be specific, you were wrong, and don't want to admit it, so you are moving the goal posts.
> 
> As usual.
> 
> Just an FYI, that is a tactic used by losers, not people making a point.
Click to expand...


Why would I look for a link where a camera caught the killer?  My point was not that the killer was even caught in the first place but the fact that you were not alive. Of course everyone else but you understood that. FYI you are a loser that can't debate the points of an OP and consequently you are delegated to the fringes of the discussion because your tactics of lying and making pointless points are simply puerile.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum has to create diversions.  He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk.  Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean.  For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum's debate is inside his head, it's funny watching him come back with some irrelevancy that means something only he sees.
Click to expand...


Which explains why I always manage to find the contradictions inside your posts.

Congratulations though, you actually read a post, and posted something that actually applies to what the poster said. which is a first for you. I knew you could do it. The fact that you violated the spirit of the CDZ in the process really only matters if you think debate is about the evidence, not the insults.

Wait, you do complain about the fact that people are mean when they respond to your posts. You even pos repped me once and insulted me in the comment, and then claimed the high ground because you never neg anyone.



midcan5 said:


> I started to reply a few days ago but got busy and this thread keeps growing and I lost the post I was replying to.  Anyway a few comments:
> 
> Free speech is not free speech it involves consequences and it often involves capital.



Totally wrong, and completely irrelevant to the thread. 



midcan5 said:


> Rights are based on something valued, values are constructs.



Wrong. Rights are not based on values, they have value, which is why people are willing to die to defend them.



midcan5 said:


> Natural selection is an amoral process and thus inconsistent with natural rights.



What? Did you even think before you typed this sentence? Why on Earth would anyone thing that evolution is inconsistent with rights?



midcan5 said:


> If a God is the source of rights then rights cannot be natural but inspired or created by a divinity.



Already dealt with, but I will repeat it simply because I know you never actually read a thread before you post.

If we take the position that God is the source of nature, ant that he imbued nature with rights, then, by definition, rights are natural. If, on the other hand, we assume that anything God creates is unnatural, then nature itself is unnatural.



midcan5 said:


> If you assume NR exist and they apply to all humans you have lots of splainin to do.



Which explains why people have been explaining that throughout history.

Funny thing, you act like you have actually read books. At least, you are quite willing to toss around quotes from them. Have you ever read anything by Nelson Mandela? 

*To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.*​ Powerful words, don't you think?



midcan5 said:


> If rights are natural what use are they in relation to real life and not simply debate.



Why do people keep getting that backwards? The only way rights are worthless is if they are given us by others.



midcan5 said:


> Another argument against natural rights is rights change and have changed often over time.



Because we all know that nature is static.

See the difference between actually thinking and simply mouthing platitudes? With less then 10 words I accepted your premise that rights change, and simultaneously destroyed your conclusion that this proves they are not natural. That is how you make an argument using logic and repartee.

Take notes.



midcan5 said:


> Rights come from law and law is often a debate.



The law recognizes that some rights come from outside of the structure of law. 

Maybe you should rethink your premise.



midcan5 said:


> "Right is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters."  Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies



Wow, I am impressed, a quote that actually backs up your point. I know you didn't do it on your own, but I am impressed that you actually listened to me after all those times I pointed out how your quotes actually contradict the point you are trying to make.

That said, I find an inherent dichotomy in a philosophy that preaches the Golden Rule and then argues that there are no natural rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
> not the victim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but video collected from more than 50 private and public cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> try again ?
Click to expand...


Are you confused by facts?


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but video collected from more than 50 private and public cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> try again ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you confused by facts?
Click to expand...


no---post a few pertinent ones


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> try again ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confused by facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no---post a few pertinent ones
Click to expand...


Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court.  This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again.  He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> try again ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confused by facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no---post a few pertinent ones
Click to expand...


I have, unlike everyone who keeps arguing that I am wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you confused by facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no---post a few pertinent ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court.  This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again.  He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.
Click to expand...


Do you have an plan to actually address the points I raised, or are you going to continue nibbling at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear me out with things that are impertinent?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum has to create diversions.  He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk.  Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean.  For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?
> 
> Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.
Click to expand...


No, the point is that I am enjoying myself, the participation part was me tearing your arguments apart and then laughing as you ran around redefining all the terms in order to declare yourself the winner.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> no---post a few pertinent ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court.  This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again.  He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an plan to actually address the points I raised, or are you going to continue nibbling at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear me out with things that are impertinent?
Click to expand...


Let me know when you have some pertinent points and I will address them. Until you learn to stay on topic I will only play with you when bored.


----------



## Asclepias

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?
> 
> Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the point is that I am enjoying myself, the participation part was me tearing your arguments apart and then laughing as you ran around redefining all the terms in order to declare yourself the winner.
Click to expand...


I know you enjoy when I pay attention to you so i will stop.  You show your sadness when you think this is about winning instead of mutually improving your knowledge.  You are the epitome of a loser with a capital L.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court.  This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again.  He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an plan to actually address the points I raised, or are you going to continue nibbling at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear me out with things that are impertinent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you have some pertinent points and I will address them. Until you learn to stay on topic I will only play with you when bored.
Click to expand...


Go back and look at all the deflections you made.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that I am enjoying myself, the participation part was me tearing your arguments apart and then laughing as you ran around redefining all the terms in order to declare yourself the winner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you enjoy when I pay attention to you so i will stop.  You show your sadness when you think this is about winning instead of mutually improving your knowledge.  You are the epitome of a loser with a capital L.
Click to expand...


The best thing about mocking you is I really don't need you to participate, all I need you to do is post.


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self preservation isn't a good enough reason ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if no one has any rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
Click to expand...


If all people around you respect your rights equally as theirs,
then nobody would kill you against your will, since that would violate your right of consent.

Not sure how or where this convo got to this point.

But I hold that we have "rights in the real world" where we agree to follow
and enforce the same principles for everyone so there is security and an
agreed process for resolving conflicts when those arise.

That is in the practical sense, in reality given what goes on with people in society.

In the theoretical level, these laws (of how human connect or react to one another) already exist, by human nature
and what works and doesn't work with people; and we have merely
to AGREE on those laws to invoke and practice them "in real life."
They do not need to be in writing, but it helps to get on the same page.

We are fortunate in America to have "free speech and press" to 
communicate and share freely, with greater ability to agree and enforce
principles we believe in by informed consent, and to resolve conflicts. Countries without this same cultural tradition and freedom suffer obstruction and cannot always
resolve conflicts before violence erupts. We have an advantage in that sense.

So on a practical level, our ability to exercise our rights and freedoms under natural laws depends largely on the agreements we establish with those around us, using these very rights and freedom to express our opinions and beliefs, and areas of consent or dissent.


----------



## emilynghiem

Asclepias said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> For *dblack's* sake, I have got to respond to this, though I have no more to say to those whose minds are closed to the ramifications of human consciousness, either as a matter of sociopathy, pride or trolling, and that is _not_ a personal attack as such, merely a statement of fact.
> 
> *dblack*, there is absolutely nothing spiritual about the facts of natural law.  Clear the cobwebs of post-modern sloganeering from your mind; they're obscuring the reality of things for you. The imperatives of the Golden Rule just are . . . *in nature*!
> 
> *Are you saying you don't understand that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong?  More to the point, are you saying you would have another murder or oppress or rob you?*
> 
> Start there, and stay there as long as it takes to sink in.  Forget the rest for now.
> 
> What is esoteric or mystical about that?
> 
> What's hurting your head are the esoteric and mystical roadblocks of relativism's inscrutable mumbo jumbo:  they are standing between you and the apprehension of the reality in which you live.
> 
> Why would any sensible person give a hoot about an inscrutable distinction that would make no difference to us in everyday reality?  There exists for us no means by which to quantify it, let alone qualify it.  Use your wits and bear down on reality as it is for us.  There's already more than enough complexity in that, enough to boggle the mind for eternity.  Why do you make things harder than they are?
> 
> *Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*
> 
> *Foxfyre* is wrong to say that natural rights have nothing to do with morals; they have everything to do with morals as bottomed on the of reality of human (sentient) nature.  What's the first principle of morality with regard to natural rights?  Knowing where your rights end, for that is the point at which another's begin.
> 
> The moral distinction between a genuine _right_ and an _ability_ is the same moral distinction between _natural rights_ and _government tyranny_ stomping all over the former under the guise of _civil protections_.  But to be fair to her, I'm pretty sure she was speaking in a different context as she just made the same point to another, effectively, regarding this very moral distinction.
> 
> Also, natural law is not religious in any supernatural or theistic sense at all as bottomed on nature.
> 
> However, it is not unreasonable to say that natural law is natural religion, but not in the sense that's clouding your thinking at all.
> 
> Besides, my occasional allusions to nature being ultimately grounded in an eternally subsistent and, therefore, transcendent reality beyond the same is not religious as such, but ontological.  If those allusions are causing you to confuse the facts of nature in this regard, disregard them for now.  They're not immediately relevant, just instructive.
> 
> But like I said, just concentrate on the following for now:
> 
> *You know that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you know that you would not have another murder or oppress or rob you.
> 
> Natural law = natural morality.  Natural morality = natural law.  Same thing.  Natural, not supernatural.*
> 
> Grasp that and you're on your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me but thats a bunch of hogwash.  You feel murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.  You can visualize the consequences and out of fear you protect yourself from the possibility regardless of if you have rights or not.  If someone comes along and tells you there are some rights to help you out with you protecting yourself, you now feel validated and the more rights the merrier. If you feel you are in a position to do this to someone else because the reward is sufficient enough or the risk is non existent then people do and have done it to others. The same founding fathers that claimed we had these rights had no problem with slavery and forceful take over of Native American land.  Explain that for me if you can.
Click to expand...


1. As for murder etc. to be wrong because we don't want it,

NOBODY wants something done to them 'against their will'
So this goes against human nature which is to defend one's interest or free will/consent.
it doesn't have to be an issue of "morality"

Even a criminal who wants to rob someone doesn't want to be stopped against their will.
So it applies even to immoral acts.
it is a "natural law" that applies to all people.
We act according to our will and what we consent to, the choice that is we feel is either the most satisfying/pleasurable/peaceful or causes the least fearful/suffering/painful.

the pleasure/pain principle

We just work on different levels, depending if we count the effects on other people
equally as the effect on us, and to what degree, when we assess the benefits either way.

moral or immoral, for good or bad intent, the issue is what we consent to or want

2. as for explaining how can people believe in equality and endorse slavery

slaves were bought and mortgaged as property
owners could not always afford to free their slaves
any more than homeowners can give away their homes if they still owe money to the bank

that is the stage of society back then

especially for slaves not educated or able to sustain themselves in the social environment,
they had little choice but to live as slaves until the situation changed

so the slave owners who were against change, saw that the disparity in economic and social standing was not something they could address yet.

this would come later

so it is like how 
* immigrants are not immediately equal but have to go through steps to acquire status
* teenagers who are not independent are not equal but require training and experience before becoming a responsible adult with legal and financial liability they can carry

people are equal in terms of dignity and respect

but in terms of practical legal and financial standing, and authority to make decisions,
people are in different stages and classes, and no we are not equal yet.

people with years or generations of experience owning businesses and property are not equal to people who have never known ownership and control. 

we still have this disparity today.

we can believe people deserve to be treated equally, but it requires
education and experience to get there.

just like our laws require equal justice and protection but we don't have that yet.
we still have work to do to make the system truly work for all people at all levels.


----------



## dilloduck

emilynghiem said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if no one has any rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If all people around you respect your rights equally as theirs,
> then nobody would kill you against your will, since that would violate your right of consent.
> 
> Not sure how or where this convo got to this point.
> 
> But I hold that we have "rights in the real world" where we agree to follow
> and enforce the same principles for everyone so there is security and an
> agreed process for resolving conflicts when those arise.
> 
> That is in the practical sense, in reality given what goes on with people in society.
> 
> In the theoretical level, these laws (of how human connect or react to one another) already exist, by human nature
> and what works and doesn't work with people; and we have merely
> to AGREE on those laws to invoke and practice them "in real life."
> They do not need to be in writing, but it helps to get on the same page.
> 
> We are fortunate in America to have "free speech and press" to
> communicate and share freely, with greater ability to agree and enforce
> principles we believe in by informed consent, and to resolve conflicts. Countries without this same cultural tradition and freedom suffer obstruction and cannot always
> resolve conflicts before violence erupts. We have an advantage in that sense.
> 
> So on a practical level, our ability to exercise our rights and freedoms under natural laws depends largely on the agreements we establish with those around us, using these very rights and freedom to express our opinions and beliefs, and areas of consent or dissent.
Click to expand...




> Not sure how or where this convo got to this point.



The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?


----------



## KokomoJojo

Asclepias said:


> I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.



the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion


----------



## KokomoJojo

dilloduck said:


> The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
> Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?



even a right granted from god would require being established my man. that circular


----------



## emilynghiem

dilloduck said:


> The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
> Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?



Yes there are natural laws governing human behavior that exist and operate
REGARDLESS of what is established by people and our laws.
and
Yes whether or not we have rights, freedoms or security under these laws
IN REAL LIFE / PRACTICE
depends on how we agree to treat each other

it helps to have agreements established by word or in writing
that is why humans tend to organize by religious tribes or civil laws by state or nation

the universal principles that these written laws or unspoken agreements are based on
STILL exist and operate regardless,
but in reality, if we are going to make the "real" then it depends on
* written and spoken agreements
* agreements on interpretation or the spirit of the laws
* agreements on execution of laws or contracts

In America, our Constitution happens to make the core principles "statutory"
putting them "in writing" for US citizens and residents we deem under US jurisdiction.

Technically the same principles of natural laws inherently exist for all human beings,
by our nature and psychology of interacting in groups and collective society;
but if people don't establish agreement on standards, including a fair process to resolve conflicts of interest, then we risk violating each other's consent and free will
which inherently all individuals seek to protect for themselves by our nature.


----------



## emilynghiem

KokomoJojo said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion
Click to expand...


I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS 
so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"

I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.

If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.


----------



## Foxfyre

emilynghiem said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough.  It would still provide the security part.  I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
> so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"
> 
> I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
> where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.
> 
> If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
> whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.
Click to expand...


Hi Emily.  Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all.  Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed.  And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
> so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"
> 
> I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
> where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.
> 
> If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
> whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Emily.  Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all.  Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed.  And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.
Click to expand...

Bingo.  Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats.  Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate.  Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...

Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline.  The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
> so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"
> 
> I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
> where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.
> 
> If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
> whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily.  Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all.  Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed.  And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bingo.  Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats.  Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate.  Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...
> 
> Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline.  The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.
Click to expand...


Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind.  It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less.  I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.


----------



## Foxfyre

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily.  Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all.  Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed.  And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats.  Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate.  Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...
> 
> Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline.  The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind.  It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less.  I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.
Click to expand...


Your post here is the polar opposite of what I and RKMBrown said.  Unalienable rights are not something that people are owed or deserve and they allow nobody 'special' anything.   The Founders recognized that they exist and are what each person perceives them to be and are to be considered inviolate so long as nobody's rights are infringed.

The minute government presumes to dictate what unalienable rights are, the government has assumed power to take away whatever rights it wishes to take.  The Founders were determined that the federal government never be given such power.

The Leftist mind seems incapable of grasping that concept, or at least that appears to be the case on this thread.  Those on the right are having far less problem with the concept.


----------



## oldfart

Foxfyre said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
> so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"
> 
> I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
> where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.
> 
> If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
> whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Emily.  Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all.  Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed.  And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.
Click to expand...


I dissent from you on two points regarding the Founding generation.  First, I think the idea of privacy came later.  All of the freedoms and rights they contemplated (especially of speech, assembly, and the right to vote) were publically exercised rights.  You voted by voice at your polling place, before or after imbibing the whiskey thoughtfully provided.    There were no such things as anonymous rights.  The Founders would possibly have considered corporations and organizations as having free speech rights, but never without being identified as the speaker.  Even the Federalist Papers under the name "Publius" were at the time well known as to the authorship of each paper.  

Second, the founders had an intense distrust of corporations and large entities of any type.  They regarded these as threats to freedom and democracy.  They would undoubtedly have been among the first to break up large concentrations of power wherever they arose as smacking too much of aristocracy, monarchy, royal grants, and all the evils of European government.


----------



## Foxfyre

oldfart said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
> so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"
> 
> I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
> where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.
> 
> If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
> whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily.  Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all.  Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed.  And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dissent from you on two points regarding the Founding generation.  First, I think the idea of privacy came later.  All of the freedoms and rights they contemplated (especially of speech, assembly, and the right to vote) were publically exercised rights.  You voted by voice at your polling place, before or after imbibing the whiskey thoughtfully provided.    There were no such things as anonymous rights.  The Founders would possibly have considered corporations and organizations as having free speech rights, but never without being identified as the speaker.  Even the Federalist Papers under the name "Publius" were at the time well known as to the authorship of each paper.
> 
> Second, the founders had an intense distrust of corporations and large entities of any type.  They regarded these as threats to freedom and democracy.  They would undoubtedly have been among the first to break up large concentrations of power wherever they arose as smacking too much of aristocracy, monarchy, royal grants, and all the evils of European government.
Click to expand...


But here I think you are making the same mistake others are making by confusing or equating 'unalienable' rights with 'legal' rights.  They are two separate things.  "Legal" rights are instituted by and enforced by government.  "Unalienable" rights simply exist, without or without government, and, because the purpose of our government is to allow a nation based on individual liberty, such 'unalienable' rights are simply to be recognized and left alone--to be inviolate by our government or anybody else.

Unalienable rights are who and what we are and what we do/think/believe that requires no participation or contribution from any other and does not infringe on anybody else's rights, unalienable or legal.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind.  It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less.  I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.


True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.


----------



## Asclepias

Foxfyre said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats.  Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate.  Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...
> 
> Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline.  The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind.  It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less.  I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post here is the polar opposite of what I and RKMBrown said.  Unalienable rights are not something that people are owed or deserve and they allow nobody 'special' anything.   The Founders recognized that they exist and are what each person perceives them to be and are to be considered inviolate so long as nobody's rights are infringed.
> 
> The minute government presumes to dictate what unalienable rights are, the government has assumed power to take away whatever rights it wishes to take.  The Founders were determined that the federal government never be given such power.
> 
> The Leftist mind seems incapable of grasping that concept, or at least that appears to be the case on this thread.  Those on the right are having far less problem with the concept.
Click to expand...


After you take off the formal dressing its the same thing I've been saying all along. "Here are some rights that we say came from the air just because you are special".


----------



## Asclepias

KokomoJojo said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
> Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> even a right granted from god would require being established my man. that circular
Click to expand...


Not really. We need to prove the existence of God for that to be a true statement.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind.  It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less.  I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.
Click to expand...


I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government?  Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving.  Wheres the humanity in that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily.  Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all.  Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed.  And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats.  Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate.  Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...
> 
> Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline.  The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind.  It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less.  I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.
Click to expand...


How do you not get dizzy running around in circles like that? No one is claiming special privileges, we are arguing for the rights that belong to everyone.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind.  It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less.  I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government?  Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving.  Wheres the humanity in that?
Click to expand...


Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government?  Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving.  Wheres the humanity in that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.
Click to expand...


No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do.  Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away.  What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government?  Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving.  Wheres the humanity in that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do.  Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away.  What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.
Click to expand...


Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.


----------



## RKMBrown

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do.  Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away.  What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.
> 
> Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.
Click to expand...


You'd think the guy never heard of the American Revolution.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do.  Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away.  What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.
> 
> Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd think the guy never heard of the American Revolution.
Click to expand...


You'd think you would realize this is not the 1700's


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.
> 
> Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think the guy never heard of the American Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd think you would realize this is not the 1700's
Click to expand...


I would never think you would think at all, which is why you are ignoring the fact that Gandhi lived in the 20th century.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do.  Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away.  What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.
> 
> Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.
Click to expand...


Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.


----------



## Asclepias

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do.  Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away.  What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.
> 
> Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.
Click to expand...


I thought Gandhi took a barrage of bullets and still defeated the British singlehandedly.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do.  Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away.  What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.
> 
> Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.
Click to expand...


That doesn't change the fact that Gandhi never fired a shot, does it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Asclepias said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.
> 
> Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Gandhi took a barrage of bullets and still defeated the British singlehandedly.
Click to expand...


You are the one that said "(Y)ou cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do." I provided an example that proves that you are wrong, and, as usual, you prefer to try and pretend that I am misrepresenting the facts.


----------



## KokomoJojo

dilloduck said:


> Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.


independence from what?

what britain had no right to in the first place?  Of course with strings attached like every other country britain has ever terrorized and taken over including the US which is really not much more than an extended british colony


----------



## KokomoJojo

Quantum Windbag said:


> You are the one that said "(Y)ou cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do." I provided an example that *proves that you are wrong*, and, as usual, you prefer to try and pretend that I am misrepresenting the facts.


see how far you get with that in america sometime.  I'll bring the flowers. ~MLK


----------



## KokomoJojo

of course you have natural rights, but like any other brit/french/ aristocratically 'founded' government the real question is how the hel can you defend them in a system that refuses to recognize anything but political rights that suit their agenda?


----------



## KokomoJojo

technically a right is a valid 'claim'.

The OP is not properly framed.

Its not whether you have a right its whether you can enforce it.  You have many rights that you cannot enforce.

You need the government who has a monopoly on the courts as the enforcement arm and if they give you the big FUCK YOU then forget it, who will you turn to?  Russia?

In the beginning we had "Ultimate" ownership in land and *real* rights, 








which over a very short time omnipotent sovereign allodial ownership was commingled with the fee and converted to mere "interests" in an estate, 

_(Guess who owns the "soil" in the US"? Not you!
_
and estate in FEE-Simple






of course meaning that the government also has an interest.  

You got the right to live on any land in the US as long as you pay the rents and for the services to the overlord.





Interesting how your rights got usurped when you were not looking.   Pun definitely intended.

However its not that they dont exist, but that the way the cookie crumbles when you let the black robed priests dictate our law in lieu of fully empowered juries of our peers with the power to judge both the facts and the "law" that no government agency has the right to overturn.





Sounds like God to me.


Oh and freedom of speech?  Look at your state constitution.  You ahve the freedom to pray and thats where it ends.  You do not have the freedom to EXERCISE *YOUR* religion only the governments religion.  If they ever give you the freedom to exercize your religion they will demand its behind closed doors.  While in public its the states religion you will exercise.

Now as you can see they distinguish between political and natural, however there are several court cases where the state claims they have no obligation to protect anyone.  You pay taxes on your property for rents and services no different than any vassal in england before the revolution, the only thing that changed is the 'STYLE' of tenure, the tenure is as feudal today as it ever was! LOL

as everyone should be able to see you own your land and tenements but NOT the soil, the state owns the soil and is your ultimate land lord, hence when you fail to pay taxes you 'forfeit' not your property but yout right of property!  tada!  They got you by the balls!  Your natural rights are so usurped you aint never getting them back!


----------



## dr.d

U certainly have the right to exercise ur religion..and the right to speak..and the right to bear arms..etc, 
Until those "rights" of urs prevent others from excercising THEIR rights to different religions or none at all..and their ability to speak and be heard...or their right to NOT bear arms or be safe from those who feel their unfettered use of semi-automatic guns with unlimited ordinance precludes the safety and rights of others who differ...
Freedom is not single minded in a truly free nation...it must be available to all citizens..not just those that agree with a particular ideology...  


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## KokomoJojo

dr.d said:


> U certainly have the right to exercise ur religion..and the right to speak..and the right to bear arms..etc,
> Until u feel that those "rights" of urs prevent others from excercising THEIR rights to different religions or none at all..and their ability to speak and be heard...or their right to NOT bear arms or be safe from those who feel their unfettered use of semi-automatic guns with unlimited ordinance precludes the safety and rights of others who differ...
> Freedom is not single minded in a truly free nation...it must be available to all citizens..not just those that agree with a particular ideology...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com



what about non citizens who have no obligation to listen to anyones bullshit or cater to their fears?

unfettered use? ordinance? who cares? you think you have the right to tell people what they can buy when they have committed no crime?

anyone can join the citizen contract.  so what?

No you dont have the right to exercise your religion thats nonsense.  How many more court cases do you need to prove it to yourself?  You have the right to pray to your god and that is where it ends! period.

the government is the new religion and the second you forget it you will pay

If you have not figgered it out yet they [the states] took all your rights away.  you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".


----------



## dr.d

KokomoJojo said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> 
> U certainly have the right to exercise ur religion..and the right to speak..and the right to bear arms..etc,
> Until u feel that those "rights" of urs prevent others from excercising THEIR rights to different religions or none at all..and their ability to speak and be heard...or their right to NOT bear arms or be safe from those who feel their unfettered use of semi-automatic guns with unlimited ordinance precludes the safety and rights of others who differ...
> Freedom is not single minded in a truly free nation...it must be available to all citizens..not just those that agree with a particular ideology...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about non citizens who have no obligation to listen to anyones bullshit or cater to their fears?
> 
> unfettered use? ordinance? who cares? you think you have the right to tell people what they can buy when they have committed no crime?
> 
> anyone can join the citizen contract.  so what?
> 
> No you dont have the right to exercise your religion thats nonsense.  How many more court cases do you need to prove it to yourself?  You have the right to pray to your god and that is where it ends! period.
> 
> the government is the new religion and the second you forget it you will pay
> 
> If you have not figgered it out yet they [the states] took all your rights away.  you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".
Click to expand...


Hmm...methinks u missed my point..."Rights" that infringe on or neutralize the rights of others in a free society are not rights at all...but a form of tyranny. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## KokomoJojo

dr.d said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> 
> U certainly have the right to exercise ur religion..and the right to speak..and the right to bear arms..etc,
> Until u feel that those "rights" of urs prevent others from excercising THEIR rights to different religions or none at all..and their ability to speak and be heard...or their right to NOT bear arms or be safe from those who feel their unfettered use of semi-automatic guns with unlimited ordinance precludes the safety and rights of others who differ...
> Freedom is not single minded in a truly free nation...it must be available to all citizens..not just those that agree with a particular ideology...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about non citizens who have no obligation to listen to anyones bullshit or cater to their fears?
> 
> unfettered use? ordinance? who cares? you think you have the right to tell people what they can buy when they have committed no crime?
> 
> anyone can join the citizen contract.  so what?
> 
> No you dont have the right to exercise your religion thats nonsense.  How many more court cases do you need to prove it to yourself?  You have the right to pray to your god and that is where it ends! period.
> 
> the government is the new religion and the second you forget it you will pay
> 
> If you have not figgered it out yet they [the states] took all your rights away.  you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm...methinks u missed my point..."Rights" that infringe on or neutralize the rights of others in a *free society* are not rights at all...but a form of tyranny.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...



now theres a nice oxymoron LOL


you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".

Is not creating debt that you and your children have to pay forcing you and your kids into bond slavery tryanny?

the complaint was taxation without representation, so we make constitutions, give someone the label representative who does not give a damn what we want the full authority to tax.  How is that different than pre-revolution


----------



## RKMBrown

KokomoJojo said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about non citizens who have no obligation to listen to anyones bullshit or cater to their fears?
> 
> unfettered use? ordinance? who cares? you think you have the right to tell people what they can buy when they have committed no crime?
> 
> anyone can join the citizen contract.  so what?
> 
> No you dont have the right to exercise your religion thats nonsense.  How many more court cases do you need to prove it to yourself?  You have the right to pray to your god and that is where it ends! period.
> 
> the government is the new religion and the second you forget it you will pay
> 
> If you have not figgered it out yet they [the states] took all your rights away.  you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...methinks u missed my point..."Rights" that infringe on or neutralize the rights of others in a *free society* are not rights at all...but a form of tyranny.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now theres a nice oxymoron LOL
> 
> 
> you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".
> 
> Is not creating debt that you and your children have to pay forcing you and your kids into bond slavery tryanny?
> 
> the complaint was taxation without representation, so we make constitutions, give someone the label representative who does not give a damn what we want the full authority to tax.  How is that different than pre-revolution
Click to expand...


Crickets


----------



## jasonnfree

KokomoJojo said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> what about non citizens who have no obligation to listen to anyones bullshit or cater to their fears?
> 
> unfettered use? ordinance? who cares? you think you have the right to tell people what they can buy when they have committed no crime?
> 
> anyone can join the citizen contract.  so what?
> 
> No you dont have the right to exercise your religion thats nonsense.  How many more court cases do you need to prove it to yourself?  You have the right to pray to your god and that is where it ends! period.
> 
> the government is the new religion and the second you forget it you will pay
> 
> If you have not figgered it out yet they [the states] took all your rights away.  you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...methinks u missed my point..."Rights" that infringe on or neutralize the rights of others in a *free society* are not rights at all...but a form of tyranny.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now theres a nice oxymoron LOL
> 
> 
> you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".
> 
> Is not creating debt that you and your children have to pay forcing you and your kids into bond slavery tryanny?
> 
> the complaint was taxation without representation, so we make constitutions, give someone the label representative who does not give a damn what we want the full authority to tax.  How is that different than pre-revolution
Click to expand...


Slavery and tyranny were words used after the passage of the 16th amendment a century ago.  Things went pretty good for America since then in spite of all the dire predictions.    I'm still free to travel, say pretty much what I want so I guess fiat currency and the federal reserve isn't all that bad.   Bond slaves probably means indentured servants.  Now, the growing inequality of wealth is creating a slavery of sorts.  What good is freedom if people don't have a enough to eat or to put gas in their gas tanks to enjoy a little travel.  Sad, and I see Americans working harder than ever.  More than they did in the early 60's when I joined the work force.


----------



## KokomoJojo

and jumping to the OP, natural rights exist with without and despite government.

The problem is and always has been enforcing them.  

Someone by whatever name you want to assign has to hold the axe.


----------



## KokomoJojo

jasonnfree said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...methinks u missed my point..."Rights" that infringe on or neutralize the rights of others in a *free society* are not rights at all...but a form of tyranny.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now theres a nice oxymoron LOL
> 
> 
> you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".
> 
> Is not creating debt that you and your children have to pay forcing you and your kids into bond slavery tryanny?
> 
> the complaint was taxation without representation, so we make constitutions, give someone the label representative who does not give a damn what we want the full authority to tax.  How is that different than pre-revolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery and tyranny were words used after the passage of the 16th amendment a century ago.  Things went pretty good for America since then in spite of all the dire predictions.    I'm still free to travel, say pretty much what I want so I guess fiat currency and the federal reserve isn't all that bad.   Bond slaves probably means indentured servants.  Now, the growing inequality of wealth is creating a slavery of sorts.  What good is freedom if people don't have a enough to eat or to put gas in their gas tanks to enjoy a little travel.  Sad, and I see Americans working harder than ever.  More than they did in the early 60's when I joined the work force.
Click to expand...


slavery was used since 1500BC and tyranny since the magna charta 1200AD.

no you are not free to travel, you must buy a license which can be revoked.

no a bond slave is not an indentured slave.  The most heinous version of bond slave a you paying for a debt your parents made. FEDERAL DEBT

You fiat currency loses value the second you get it in your hands and you are taxed if you put it on the market to break even, gold on the other hand gains in value.

Really?  I can think of many things you do not dare say, and unfortunately neither can I to prove it to you LOL

Nor can you exercise your religion, only the government is allowed to exercise their religion.


----------



## 320 Years of History

Listening said:


> Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.
> 
> While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?



To answer the title question:  yes.

The role of government is _to secure_ the rights and freedoms of those governed, not_ to provide_ the rights those governed may enjoy, not _to dictate_ what rights one may or may not enjoy.  The matter then is that "to secure" those rights is to make it possible for individuals to exercise as unencumbered as possible those rights with which they were born, among them "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  

Make no mistake, however, the rights themselves exist regardless of whether a government makes it possible, impossible, easy, hard, etc. to exercise them.  If one is fortunate, among other things, one lives in a nation having a government that facilitates one's more-rather-than-less discretionary exercise of all one's "God given" rights, or one that at least doesn't prohibit one's exercise of them.


----------

