Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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 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]

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?

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.

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]

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, 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.

Hold it right there----a negative cannot be proven and that is what you are asking---but you know that.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Because the right to life means that other people have to provide for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

What possible danger is there in saying unalienable rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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?

 

[dilloduck]

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?

What possible danger is there in saying unalienable rights?

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]

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.

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.

Under your interpretation no one has any rights at all, why is it better?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Hold it right there----a negative cannot be proven and that is what you are asking---but you know that.

I can prove a negative, why can't you?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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 ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

Are you saying your account was hacked? Again?