Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.

 

[G.T.]

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.

you either fight for small government or you fight to abolish it - the rest is a defense mechanism when one has to self-dismiss one's own hypocrisy

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.

I never made such a claim.
Straw man fallacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

You already pointed out that self preservation is natural, yet you also claim that there is no proof that the concept of self defense as a natural right exists only because man thought of it.

That is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

you either fight for small government or you fight to abolish it - the rest is a defense mechanism when one has to self-dismiss one's own hypocrisy

The fact that I am willing to accept your needs in no way makes me a hypocrite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.

I never made such a claim.
Straw man fallacy.

You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?

 

[G.T.]

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

You already pointed out that self preservation is natural, yet you also claim that there is no proof that the concept of self defense as a natural right exists only because man thought of it.

That is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

The concept of self defense is natural.

Self defense being a right is not "proven" just because a person WANTS THIS.

WOW, talk about cognitive dissonance.


Naturally aspiring towards staying alive, being happy, etc. is not proof it's A RIGHT.

There's no logical connector there, whatsoever, except that man wanted it to be a right.

 

[G.T.]

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.

you either fight for small government or you fight to abolish it - the rest is a defense mechanism when one has to self-dismiss one's own hypocrisy

The fact that I am willing to accept your needs in no way makes me a hypocrite.

Indeed it does. You don't want a Government.

But you fight to keep it, "small."

G'job.

I don't want a government either.

Do I get a prize?

 

[G.T.]

Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.

 

[The Rabbi]

It does, however, destroy your claim that no other society ever recognized the freedom of an individual.

I never made such a claim.
Straw man fallacy.

You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?

Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom. Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.

Wanting sex does not make having sex a natural right.

 

[G.T.]

Wanting to stay alive does not mean staying alive is thus a natural right.
Wanting to be happy does not mean being happy is thus a natural right.

Wanting sex does not make having sex a natural right.

my instinct tells me that the food I smell in the office is desired by my belly

that doesn't mean its my right to go ahead and take it

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

You already pointed out that self preservation is natural, yet you also claim that there is no proof that the concept of self defense as a natural right exists only because man thought of it.

That is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

The concept of self defense is natural.

Self defense being a right is not "proven" just because a person WANTS THIS.

WOW, talk about cognitive dissonance.


Naturally aspiring towards staying alive, being happy, etc. is not proof it's A RIGHT.

There's no logical connector there, whatsoever, except that man wanted it to be a right.

Remember what I said about close minded people?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never made such a claim.
Straw man fallacy.

You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?

Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom. Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.

There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didn't claim that no other society ever accepted the concept of natural rights, which is actually the concept of individual freedom?

Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom. Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.

There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.

That's nice but not particularly relevant here. The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Natural rights are not the same as individual freedom. Not even close. That is your interpretation, which makes your argument a straw man fallacy.

There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.

That's nice but not particularly relevant here. The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.

No, you maintain that the fact that you believe they don't exists proves they don't exist. If you just thought they didn't exist you could admit that it is actually possible that you are wrong.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Once again:

No, real is something like, oh patent laws. I can explain what patent laws are. I can show where they come from and what the parameters are.
I cannot do the same with "natural rights." It is fairies and unicorns.

Rights are everything We the People did not confer to government.

You don't examine the charter through which powers are granted to learn what rights have been excepted out of that contract.

You are merely noting now, (some 226 years late) one of the reasons that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was so vehemently resisted and argued against as being unnecessary, dangerous and absurd, because the rights of the citizen are impossible to quantify and list.

If they are impossible to quantify and list then they effectively do not exist. Anyone can claim anything is a right and there is nothing to say it isn't.

But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.

We know what they are. You know what they are.

They are self-evident because any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues. Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation.

Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.

All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."

The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man. They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment. It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.

They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!

1. The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.

2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.

3. Freedom of religion/ideology.

4. Freedom of expression.

5. Freedom of movement.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are two philosophical arguments for the purpose of government, one is that it is part of the social contract that everyone is bound by, the other is that it exists solely to protect individual rights and freedom.

That's nice but not particularly relevant here. The discussion is on natural rights. ANd I maintain they don't exist.

No, you maintain that the fact that you believe they don't exists proves they don't exist. If you just thought they didn't exist you could admit that it is actually possible that you are wrong.

No. I maintain they don't exist, offer challenges for those who do, and conclude from the unsatisfactory answers and lack of proof that I am correct and others are wrong.
If they exist it should be easy to prove.
It would be easy to explain where they came from
It would be easy to explain what they consist of.
It would be easy to explain what their parameters are.
But since no one has done any of those things in a satsifactory manner--or any manner--then I can only conclude they do not exist at all.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually, all of that was done. You're so fired up on being right you apparently didn't bother to read the last 200 and some posts on the matter.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, all of that was done. You're so fired up on being right you apparently didn't bother to read the last 200 and some posts on the matter.

And it's the old "we've already proven this" ploy again.
No. If someone had done that, the discussion would be done. It obviously isn't. No one has provided any satisfactory account to date. Saying "it's obvious", or "it's self evident" or "Jefferson said so" doesn't really amount to much.