Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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]

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.

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.

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]

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

Men control the morals of animals?

Men pretend to know what the animal is thinking and calls that behavior morals.

 

[dilloduck]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

Morals are what man decides them to be

Men control the morals of animals?

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

Men control the morals of animals?

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.

And we are supposed to believe you because you posted articles ?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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, 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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

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?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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?