Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.

Of course we have certain natural rights, but that doesn't mean a government has to recognize them and if the government where you are doesn't recognize them they effectively don't exist. That is what Jefferson was saying "the US government will ALWAYS recognize certain rights"

The fact that the government doesn't recognize my rights does not mean they do not exist. Effectively, allit means is that the government is going to try to stop me from using them.

For example, Turkey recently banned Twitter. You might not have noticed because, despite the ban, people in Turkey still tweeted away, totally unconcerned with the fact that they no longer could access the preferred method of expressing themselves. That is because, dpesite the delusions of statists everywhere, the government cannot actually take away rights.

 

[oldfart]

Both rights and obligations are aspects of social institutions, such as religion, law, economic structures, families, and so forth. Sometimes more than one institution is involved in a particular behavior (legal regulation of corporate forms and religious and family mores on stealing come to mind), and there is a potential for conflict among institutions. Did Jacob and Esau have a legally binding contract? Did one have a moral obligation to not cheat his brother?

It matters very little where philosophically these rights and obligations come from, they exist and are enforced. What is enforced and how are the relevant questions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.

When Locke and the founders were describing natural rights, they were not referring to "from man's brain."

Intellectual honesty, and all that.

No, they were claiming they were inherent in all intelligent beings as part of their nature. You claim that, because you don't understand the concept, that somehow invalidates it. I am still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that you think your lack of intellectual ability means that Hawking cannot describe how information escapes from a black hole even though light doesn't, but I will let you explain that to him.

 

[G.T.]

Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.

When Locke and the founders were describing natural rights, they were not referring to "from man's brain."

Intellectual honesty, and all that.

No, they were claiming they were inherent in all intelligent beings as part of their nature. You claim that, because you don't understand the concept, that somehow invalidates it. I am still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that you think your lack of intellectual ability means that Hawking cannot describe how information escapes from a black hole even though light doesn't, but I will let you explain that to him.

Your insults aside, you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That would be your error, then.
That everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion. I dont know why you mention an obvious fact. My point was that simply living does not accrue rights. The proof is that everything can be stripped from someone with no consequence.

The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.

Killing someone takes away their life. That is indisputable. And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.

How does it do that?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Life certainly exists. Life certainly is inherent in the individual. But life itself grants no rights to anyone and people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner.
God is not the source of rights. How could it be? Where are those rights communicated? How?

Slogans, slogans everywhere.

"But life itself grants no rights to anyone. . . ."

What does that mean?

". . . people have their lives taken away all the time, sometimes in the most unjust, egregious or even random manner."

Wait a minute. According to you there's no inherent right to life, and God cannot be the source of rights.

So what's all this talk about just and egregious?

How could it be unjust or egregious to snuff out the life of a creature that has no real inherent right to life, indeed, has no real inherent rights at all?

According to you nothing of real or absolute value is being violated. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a foolish argument to claim that they exist "just cuz," and it's a foolish argument to argue they're from God or a creator when it's not within the realm of human knowledge how life was first created.

It is even more foolish to argue that, without government, everyone would die.

The fact that you cannot follow an argument to the only logical position is not proof that other people are wrong.

I'm not a guy who said that without Government everyone would die.

Self preservation is a natural instinct.

Where does that instinct come from?

 

[G.T.]

It is even more foolish to argue that, without government, everyone would die.

The fact that you cannot follow an argument to the only logical position is not proof that other people are wrong.

I'm not a guy who said that without Government everyone would die.

Self preservation is a natural instinct.

Where does that instinct come from?

Biology.

Survival instinct makes us WANT to survive.

WANT TO SURVIVE = / = RIGHT to survive.

The right to "the pursuit of happiness" did not come from biology, only the WANT to pursue happiness came from biology.

 

[Crystalclear]

Yes, more than they do now. If there's no BIG (some form of government will always be necessary) government who bans weapons, everyone can defend himself and so can't be forced to stop themselves from using their natural rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does it really matter? People want to be owned. I'm still coming to terms with that I guess.

Some people want to be owned, others want to be free. The former is why we have government, the latter is why we fight to keep it small.

That's a contradiction.

If people wanting to be owned is "why we have government," then why would one who "wants to be free" fight to keep government small as opposed to fighting to ABOLISH Government.

Get out of here with these canards.

What makes you think I don't want to abolish government? As for the rest, I would suggest you read my signature.

 

[G.T.]

Some people want to be owned, others want to be free. The former is why we have government, the latter is why we fight to keep it small.

That's a contradiction.

If people wanting to be owned is "why we have government," then why would one who "wants to be free" fight to keep government small as opposed to fighting to ABOLISH Government.

Get out of here with these canards.

What makes you think I don't want to abolish government? As for the rest, I would suggest you read my signature.

"we fight to keep it small"

we

keep it

 

[The Rabbi]

The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.

Killing someone takes away their life. That is indisputable. And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.

OK, so the Nazis were fine in their move against eh Jews. I mean, since there was a mass killing and they essentially did nothing (that's a deliberate over-simplification before you tangent on it). So those Jews had no right to life because they were killed. Can you not see how this is unraveling on you? As long as their is no punishment handed down from other humans, then those murdered had no right to live in the first place.

great argument, dude! A+

You are correct: The Jews in Germany had no right to life. That is obvious, as they were killed in vast numbers with no consequences to the killers.
You have made my argument for me. Yet again.

 

[The Rabbi]

And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.

Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people

1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..

2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..

It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.

Mere assertion
Factual error
False dichotomy.
You're not doing well here.

In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
It is not basic. People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups. Something you didnt consider.

No other culture?

Are you aware that one of the biggest problems that the government had during the Indian wars was figuring out that the fact that a chief signed a treaty did not make it binding on other members of the tribe? They had this absurd notion that everyone was an individual, and that no one could tell them what to do. The fundamental concept they lacked in their culture was the idea of a social contract, aka government, that actually bound everyone in the tribe to a certain set of rules just because they were in the tribe.

They may not have expressed the idea of natural rights the same way Locke did, but they would have agreed with him.

That little factoid does not imply Indians had a concept of natural rights. The fact that Indians robbed each other, enslaved each other and slaughtered each other sort of implies the opposite.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.

Killing someone takes away their life. That is indisputable. And the fact that people do it unpunished on mass scale indicates the killed had no right to life to begin with.

How does it do that?

Ipso facto.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're not really grasping what he is throwing at you.

Men declared that rights were natural.

The same men who you're saying don't grant rights.


If anything, the circular logic train stops at your stop. No need for it to depart, it just ends up at the same stop - which is "men said so."

You are the one missing the point, man did not declare this, they discovered it after looking around at nature.

Yea and we can wait until you're blue in the face to prove that rights are found by looking around at nature.

Why would I try to prove it? I deal with close minded people that have a hard time seeing that nature proves that evolution is true, I know better than to expect them to handle a really hard concept.

 

[G.T.]

You are the one missing the point, man did not declare this, they discovered it after looking around at nature.

Yea and we can wait until you're blue in the face to prove that rights are found by looking around at nature.

Why would I try to prove it? I deal with close minded people that have a hard time seeing that nature proves that evolution is true, I know better than to expect them to handle a really hard concept.

There is no proof for it, so if you're laying on your sword instead of explaining how there is then I'm good with that see ya

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not a guy who said that without Government everyone would die.

Self preservation is a natural instinct.

Where does that instinct come from?

Biology.

Survival instinct makes us WANT to survive.

WANT TO SURVIVE = / = RIGHT to survive.

The right to "the pursuit of happiness" did not come from biology, only the WANT to pursue happiness came from biology.

Where does the instinct to sacrifice oneself for others come from? Did biology magically equip all animals with tow different instincts? How does biology chose which one takes precedence?

 

[The Rabbi]

Both rights and obligations are aspects of social institutions, such as religion, law, economic structures, families, and so forth. Sometimes more than one institution is involved in a particular behavior (legal regulation of corporate forms and religious and family mores on stealing come to mind), and there is a potential for conflict among institutions. Did Jacob and Esau have a legally binding contract? Did one have a moral obligation to not cheat his brother?

It matters very little where philosophically these rights and obligations come from, they exist and are enforced. What is enforced and how are the relevant questions.

Yes, sort of.
Yes, sort of. He also had an obligation to obey his mother. Nor did he cheat his brother particularly.

 

[G.T.]

Where does that instinct come from?

Biology.

Survival instinct makes us WANT to survive.

WANT TO SURVIVE = / = RIGHT to survive.

The right to "the pursuit of happiness" did not come from biology, only the WANT to pursue happiness came from biology.

Where does the instinct to sacrifice oneself for others come from? Did biology magically equip all animals with tow different instincts? How does biology chose which one takes precedence?

Hey who knows, but it doesn't come from a right n'or does its paradigm show how rights exist outside of man's creation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a contradiction.

If people wanting to be owned is "why we have government," then why would one who "wants to be free" fight to keep government small as opposed to fighting to ABOLISH Government.

Get out of here with these canards.

What makes you think I don't want to abolish government? As for the rest, I would suggest you read my signature.

"we fight to keep it small"

we

keep it

Remember when I told you to read my signature? "I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom."

I (we) recognize the fact that you need rules in order to be free. Not being an authoritarian, I see no need to force my freedom upon you, but I fight to keep your government small so you cannot force your rules on me.