Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

Not if no one has any rights.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Thats ok. You are entitled to feel that way. Obviously when you get emotional you have a hard time with reading comprehension.

 

[Asclepias]

For dblack's sake, I have got to respond to this, though I have no more to say to those whose minds are closed to the ramifications of human consciousness, either as a matter of sociopathy, pride or trolling, and that is not a personal attack as such, merely a statement of fact.

dblack, there is absolutely nothing spiritual about the facts of natural law. Clear the cobwebs of post-modern sloganeering from your mind; they're obscuring the reality of things for you. The imperatives of the Golden Rule just are . . . in nature!

Are you saying you don't understand that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong? More to the point, are you saying you would have another murder or oppress or rob you?

Start there, and stay there as long as it takes to sink in. Forget the rest for now.

What is esoteric or mystical about that?

What's hurting your head are the esoteric and mystical roadblocks of relativism's inscrutable mumbo jumbo: they are standing between you and the apprehension of the reality in which you live.

Why would any sensible person give a hoot about an inscrutable distinction that would make no difference to us in everyday reality? There exists for us no means by which to quantify it, let alone qualify it. Use your wits and bear down on reality as it is for us. There's already more than enough complexity in that, enough to boggle the mind for eternity. Why do you make things harder than they are?

Natural law = natural morality. Natural morality = natural law. Same thing. Natural, not supernatural.

Foxfyre is wrong to say that natural rights have nothing to do with morals; they have everything to do with morals as bottomed on the of reality of human (sentient) nature. What's the first principle of morality with regard to natural rights? Knowing where your rights end, for that is the point at which another's begin.

The moral distinction between a genuine right and an ability is the same moral distinction between natural rights and government tyranny stomping all over the former under the guise of civil protections. But to be fair to her, I'm pretty sure she was speaking in a different context as she just made the same point to another, effectively, regarding this very moral distinction.

Also, natural law is not religious in any supernatural or theistic sense at all as bottomed on nature.

However, it is not unreasonable to say that natural law is natural religion, but not in the sense that's clouding your thinking at all.

Besides, my occasional allusions to nature being ultimately grounded in an eternally subsistent and, therefore, transcendent reality beyond the same is not religious as such, but ontological. If those allusions are causing you to confuse the facts of nature in this regard, disregard them for now. They're not immediately relevant, just instructive.

But like I said, just concentrate on the following for now:

You know that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you know that you would not have another murder or oppress or rob you.

Natural law = natural morality. Natural morality = natural law. Same thing. Natural, not supernatural.

Grasp that and you're on your way.

Forgive me but thats a bunch of hogwash. You feel murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you wouldn't want it to happen to you. You can visualize the consequences and out of fear you protect yourself from the possibility regardless of if you have rights or not. If someone comes along and tells you there are some rights to help you out with you protecting yourself, you now feel validated and the more rights the merrier. If you feel you are in a position to do this to someone else because the reward is sufficient enough or the risk is non existent then people do and have done it to others. The same founding fathers that claimed we had these rights had no problem with slavery and forceful take over of Native American land. Explain that for me if you can.

 

[Asclepias]

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 ?

Not if no one has any rights.

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Self preservation isn't a good enough reason ?

Not if no one has any rights.

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

 

[dilloduck]

Not if no one has any rights.

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim

 

[Asclepias]

Not if no one has any rights.

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

I guess you did not read your own link. A camera caught the guy. Lets be specific so you cant insert another silly diversion. If you are killed where there are no witnesses or cameras what are your rights going to do for you?

 

[Asclepias]

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim

Quantum has to create diversions. He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk. Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean. For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.

 

[midcan5]

Quantum has to create diversions. He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk. Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean. For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.

Quantum's debate is inside his head, it's funny watching him come back with some irrelevancy that means something only he sees.

=======

I started to reply a few days ago but got busy and this thread keeps growing and I lost the post I was replying to. Anyway a few comments:

Free speech is not free speech it involves consequences and it often involves capital.
Rights are based on something valued, values are constructs.
Natural selection is an amoral process and thus inconsistent with natural rights.
If a God is the source of rights then rights cannot be natural but inspired or created by a divinity.
If you assume NR exist and they apply to all humans you have lots of splainin to do.
If rights are natural what use are they in relation to real life and not simply debate.
Another argument against natural rights is rights change and have changed often over time.
Rights come from law and law is often a debate.

"Right is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim

Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

I guess you did not read your own link. A camera caught the guy. Lets be specific so you cant insert another silly diversion. If you are killed where there are no witnesses or cameras what are your rights going to do for you?

I guess you think I didn't look for a link where cameras caught a killer because I happen to know of a few cases where a camera set up by a victim caught the murder on tape and ended up with a conviction. Lets be specific, you were wrong, and don't want to admit it, so you are moving the goal posts.

As usual.

Just an FYI, that is a tactic used by losers, not people making a point.

 

[dilloduck]

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim

Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.

but video collected from more than 50 private and public cameras

try again ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim

Quantum has to create diversions. He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk. Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean. For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.

Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?

Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim

Quantum has to create diversions. He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk. Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean. For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.

Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?

Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.

Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.

 

[Asclepias]

Impossible in you world, not mine.

Surveillance Technology Helps Catch Serial Killer - InformationWeek

FYI, that was another example of you making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You have made so many of them in this thread alone that only a psychopath would still be insisting that the other side has no evidence.

I guess you did not read your own link. A camera caught the guy. Lets be specific so you cant insert another silly diversion. If you are killed where there are no witnesses or cameras what are your rights going to do for you?

I guess you think I didn't look for a link where cameras caught a killer because I happen to know of a few cases where a camera set up by a victim caught the murder on tape and ended up with a conviction. Lets be specific, you were wrong, and don't want to admit it, so you are moving the goal posts.

As usual.

Just an FYI, that is a tactic used by losers, not people making a point.

Why would I look for a link where a camera caught the killer? My point was not that the killer was even caught in the first place but the fact that you were not alive. Of course everyone else but you understood that. FYI you are a loser that can't debate the points of an OP and consequently you are delegated to the fringes of the discussion because your tactics of lying and making pointless points are simply puerile.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum has to create diversions. He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk. Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean. For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.

Quantum's debate is inside his head, it's funny watching him come back with some irrelevancy that means something only he sees.

Which explains why I always manage to find the contradictions inside your posts.

Congratulations though, you actually read a post, and posted something that actually applies to what the poster said. which is a first for you. I knew you could do it. The fact that you violated the spirit of the CDZ in the process really only matters if you think debate is about the evidence, not the insults.

Wait, you do complain about the fact that people are mean when they respond to your posts. You even pos repped me once and insulted me in the comment, and then claimed the high ground because you never neg anyone.

I started to reply a few days ago but got busy and this thread keeps growing and I lost the post I was replying to. Anyway a few comments:

Free speech is not free speech it involves consequences and it often involves capital.

Totally wrong, and completely irrelevant to the thread.

Rights are based on something valued, values are constructs.

Wrong. Rights are not based on values, they have value, which is why people are willing to die to defend them.

Natural selection is an amoral process and thus inconsistent with natural rights.

What? Did you even think before you typed this sentence? Why on Earth would anyone thing that evolution is inconsistent with rights?

If a God is the source of rights then rights cannot be natural but inspired or created by a divinity.

Already dealt with, but I will repeat it simply because I know you never actually read a thread before you post.

If we take the position that God is the source of nature, ant that he imbued nature with rights, then, by definition, rights are natural. If, on the other hand, we assume that anything God creates is unnatural, then nature itself is unnatural.

If you assume NR exist and they apply to all humans you have lots of splainin to do.

Which explains why people have been explaining that throughout history.

Funny thing, you act like you have actually read books. At least, you are quite willing to toss around quotes from them. Have you ever read anything by Nelson Mandela?

To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.
​

Powerful words, don't you think?

If rights are natural what use are they in relation to real life and not simply debate.

Why do people keep getting that backwards? The only way rights are worthless is if they are given us by others.

Another argument against natural rights is rights change and have changed often over time.

Because we all know that nature is static.

See the difference between actually thinking and simply mouthing platitudes? With less then 10 words I accepted your premise that rights change, and simultaneously destroyed your conclusion that this proves they are not natural. That is how you make an argument using logic and repartee.

Take notes.

Rights come from law and law is often a debate.

The law recognizes that some rights come from outside of the structure of law.

Maybe you should rethink your premise.

"Right is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies

Wow, I am impressed, a quote that actually backs up your point. I know you didn't do it on your own, but I am impressed that you actually listened to me after all those times I pointed out how your quotes actually contradict the point you are trying to make.

That said, I find an inherent dichotomy in a philosophy that preaches the Golden Rule and then argues that there are no natural rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes it does stand up-----technology pointed out who the murderer was--
not the victim

Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.

but video collected from more than 50 private and public cameras

try again ?

Are you confused by facts?

 

[dilloduck]

Technology paid for by the victims, but don't let facts interfere with your position.

but video collected from more than 50 private and public cameras

try again ?

Are you confused by facts?

no---post a few pertinent ones

 

[Asclepias]

try again ?

Are you confused by facts?

no---post a few pertinent ones

Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court. This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again. He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

try again ?

Are you confused by facts?

no---post a few pertinent ones

I have, unlike everyone who keeps arguing that I am wrong.