Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[RKMBrown]

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?

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. 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]

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.

Paid political consultants...

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]

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.

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?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Asclepias does it again!

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

Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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

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]

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?

I can tell you why.

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]

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.

Except trees don't call it planting and you can see the process and prove it.

ROFL your a joke.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

What distinguishes Man from all other living things on the planet?

1) Ability and desire to manufacture weapons.
2) Vanity.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

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?

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]

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?

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.

 

[Asclepias]

Asclepias does it again!

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?

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?

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]

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?

Dozens of examples have been provided and "ignored" by you.

Humor me and give me one of the dozens.