Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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]

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.

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

See the flaw in your argument yet?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[G.T.]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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)

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)

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.

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

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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)

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.

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

Ok, and?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

...

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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."

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.