Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[hunarcy]

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.

But, apparently wanting contraception makes it a natural right.

 

[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.

But, apparently wanting contraception makes it a natural right.

Or an entitlement of some kind. Yeah.

 

[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.

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.

I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Listening:
1. I also was shocked to read philosophies that presumed Governments naturally existed.
I remember asking how can anyone START with that assumption and expect to remain universal in scope.

2. Views of Government, role and and relations with Govt are as diverse as views of God.
So you are going to get answers from all over; please see that this is good.
If you find the central position that makes the most sense to you, it should explain all the other views within that paradigm in order to be universal for all people of all views.

3. I think it is the other way around, Government exists because there are natural laws of governance; and these systems are attempts to express and enforce those relations.

This is like asking can God exist without religions? Yes. It is the other way around, that the reason religions exist is these are means of expressing the relations between man and God's laws.

Political laws and structures are the same way, they are based on natural laws that inherently exist by human nature and the fact we are social creatures in collective society.

4. As for how to enforce and exercise the rights and freedoms we naturally have as humans; this is all done by consent. Anywhere we respect each other's consent, we will respect each other's free will/exercise, free speech and press, right to security and peaceful assembly, association, interpretation, right to petition, due process, representation and redress of grievances, etc.

Government and laws ideally are external and collective representations of where we consent on policies and procedures.

So yes, we do need social AGREEMENTS in order to enforce these rights in public.
We at least need agreements in private to enforce and exercise our rights personally in life.

Where people do not agree is affected by whether people are equally educated, trained and experienced in knowledge of the laws, democratic process, and self-government.

Where there are class divisions in knowledge of property laws, economics and governance,
that is why we have hierarchical systems and unequal representation in government.

People do not have equal power or defense because we do not have equal knowledge or access to resources and ability to manage our local resources and communities.

Because of this, you will see splits where people see Government as an authority "outside themselves" either to be dependent upon, to fight against, etc. as people also see God differently, either as an outside authority imposed by others, or an internal authority, or a connection between internal/individual authority and external/collective authority.

Whether you study church or state law, you will see a lot of the same dichotomies, and process going on, of people trying to resolve the relationship between individual will, freedom and responsibility versus the greater good will of collective society or humanity.

If you are Christian, you may see commonality with the spirit or authority of Jesus or universal justice that ideally fulfills all laws to unify all people, though under separate laws.

All people of all groups are going through a similar process of reconciling our relationship with God or with Government to try to establish agreement based on truth and justice.

Whether you use religious laws or political/govt laws to establish this relationship,
it is still the same universal process of bringing justice to earth for all humanity.

The content of the laws are inherently existent, and we merely work out agreements in real life relationships using local laws and structures per culture, nation, party or religious tribe.

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.

if we can't resolve conflicts directly among ourselves, that is where we rely on an agreed third party authority to govern over us. technically the people are supposed to be one with government, so when this is done right, we are governing ourselves where the government represents a social contract or agreement on policy among the people. it is an expression of our will, not an imposition of a third party wielding and mandating policy onto others.

if we let conflicts divide us, then third parties can take over the role of govt and can impose on everyone else. since division and domination by political party has been the trend, that is what we see going on with govt right now. where people can't resolve conflicts, they abuse parties or govt to try to secure their rights and interests from conflicting parties and interests. so they all become dependent on govt or party to secure rights, instead of enforcing these naturally by agreement directly among people, which I believe in.

if you are Christian the same way the church is the people united embracing the law as one, the government is supposed to be the people united in embracing the law as one.
the church uses the scriptural laws in the Bible, based on divine spiritual laws universal to all humanity, while the government uses secular civil / constitutional laws that are based on natural laws which are universal for all humanity. though these laws in principle are universal and self-existent, the structures and written laws based on them are relative and depend on the people and traditions of enforcing them locally.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

People having free will, wanting peace and freedom, and a secure balance is natural.

Whatever they feel they want or need within that nature is relative to each person.
It's still an expression of "free will" inherent in human nature.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."

What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of
free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.

What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?

 

[Listening]

Very interesting discussion.

The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.

It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.

It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.

If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.

If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor. After all, they created them for you.

And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If rights do not exist without government how do you explain the fact that they are still used even when there is no government?

 

[dblack]

Very interesting discussion.

The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.

It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.

It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.

If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.

If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor. After all, they created them for you.

And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?

You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.

The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But Jefferson was full of shit.

How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?



Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

As said, rights are a construct of society. Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire. The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights. They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.

"[R]ights are a construct of society"? You keep making this same bald claim, yet you never substantiate it.

What rights are a construct of society? If what you say is true, then you should be able to specifically identify them, so we may examine their nature and determine the validity of your claim. Otherwise you're just appealing to some unknown authority out of turn.

"The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights."

False. As I have already shown, the term natural rights is merely the most historically recent iteration. You simply don't know your history! In the cannon of theological and philosophical thought the existence of innate human rights has been recognized for centuries: in Hammurabic law, Mosaic law, Grecian law, Roman law, Common Law; they were identified, variously, as the dignities or the prerogatives of man in classical and medieval philosophy prior to the Enlightenment as well.

"They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed."

False. Under the Magna Carta after the English Civil War British subjects residing within Great Britain proper had direct representation while the subjects of colonial holdings did not. On the other hand, direct representation or, for that matter, the franchise, is not a fundamental, innate right, but a necessary political/civil right relative to the imperatives of natural law under the state of civil government.

In any event, your point, whatever it is, has no bearing on the existence of innate rights as such. The essence of your historical error is the erroneous belief that just because innate rights were not more widely protected or officially recognized by governments prior to the aftermath of the Enlightenment that humans were not cognizant of them or that a number of social contracts prior to the medieval period didn't officially recognize them to some degree or another, though typically only for those who were reckoned to be citizens of the respective social contract, such as that of the post-exilic Hebrews, a compact that most certainly did recognize the innate rights of man.

You also fail to note that the cannon of theological and philosophical thought is replete with the recognition of innate rights prior to Augustine, as you keep blurring the semantics used to denote them after the Reformation in terms of natural law proper. I also suspect that you may not be perfectly aware of the distinction between innate rights, civil liberties and civil rights in terms of historical political science or philosophy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Very interesting discussion.

The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.

It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.

It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.

If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.

If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor. After all, they created them for you.

And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?

You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.

The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.

Precisely! Folks are confounding the distinction between innates right and the civil/political/positive rights afforded by government.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

I also see people mix up rights with privileges.

The natural laws and rights represented by the Constitution are for all people universally;
but the laws and government programs under the Constitution are for US citizens.

People who do not separate church and state laws can mix together:
Spiritual rights and responsibilities, on a moral level of what we agree we should do, with Civil rights and responsibilities on an ethical level of what we agree we shouldn't do.

I've seen this go both ways: with people taking spiritual values and trying to implement them publicly through govt; or with people taking spiritual forgiveness to such an extreme, they forget that they owe restitution on a physical level of law that isn't blindly wiped out.

We as humans all have problems with imposing on each other in cases of conflicts.

In both Christian and Constitutional laws, I see principles and procedures about resolving conflicts or rebukes, and redressing grievances, to restore relations by truth and justice.

By the time we work through that process, all these other issues come up to get resolved.
So in the end, we will establish agreement on both the spiritual and secular levels, to cover all the bases. None of us will have all the answers, but this will be delegated by groups.

That is why we have so much diversity among religious and political lines, to cover it all.
Through the internet and academic departments specializing in different fields, we have the potential to organize networks of self-governing bodies without competing for power.

So it shouldn't matter if we identify by religious, political or secular institutions; we can use all of these structures to organize resources and people around solutions and reforms. I believe this will lead to solutions to social problems to fulfill goals and laws of all groups.

Very interesting discussion.

The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.

It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.

It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.

If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.

If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor. After all, they created them for you.

And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?

You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.

The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.

Dear Dblack: these both fall under free will and right of consent.

Some people WANT more freedom than security.
Some people WANT more security than freedom.

They both WANT what they WANT in the way that they WANT it set up.

I group all this together under consent, free will, 'free exercise of religion."
Whatever you believe you want, that is your free will.

And yes, people define it all kinds of ways in relationship to God or Government.
To respect all of these ways, I think we should let people choose their affiliations
and govern themselves by that grouping, whether religious or political party or what.

Don't try to dictate or change their set up, but hold each person or group responsible
for living by, enforcing and paying for their own system and keep it separate and voluntary for anyone else who may or may not agree or want to be associated or involved.

if we can map out people by major groups, then by splits in denominational differences within these groups, we could cover all people and avoid conflicts between any.

We don't all have to agree. Just recognize there is a way we could organize and support each person, group or system to reach their maximum potential of self-sustenance.

 

[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.

I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.

I have debunked your fallacy of the false alternatives already. No need to do so again.
I have also debunked your claim that "oh, that's already been proven."
Either respond to the discussion of bugger off, like you promised about 5 pages ago.

 

[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.

Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."

What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of
free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.

What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?

You are confusing rights with instincts. I have an instinct to have sex. I don't believe I have a right to do so. I have an instinct to go where it's warm on a cold day. I dont believe I have a right to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If rights do not exist without government how do you explain the fact that they are still used even when there is no government?

They aren't. It is an unproven assertion on your part.
Recall Hobbes' formulation of man's existence in a state of nature.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.

I have debunked your fallacy of the false alternatives already. No need to do so again.
I have also debunked your claim that "oh, that's already been proven."
Either respond to the discussion of bugger off, like you promised about 5 pages ago.

You did no such thing. But claim victory if it makes you feel full.

 

[Listening]

Very interesting discussion.

The debate here seems to be around the very thing I was asking about.

It calls into question the very concept of "natural rights" as a useful construct and focuses on where rights come from.

It seems very clear to me, that people need to establish where they think rights come from as it really does test your allegiances.

If you think your rights come from God, then you view government with a very jaundiced eye.

If you think they come from the government...I am not sure how you view your benefactor. After all, they created them for you.

And how do you view people who are trying to take them away ?

You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.

The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.

I understand your frustration as it seems most disagreement is generally at the level of "definitions". Your comments above have helped me to better narrow what you are referencing. I can see an extension of that thought spilling over into what many others are pointing at.

The problem is that even within the libertarian/conservative camp such differences exist.

As an example, the "right" to the pursuit of happiness is something I find difficult to envision as being inalienable.

On the one hand I think of Steven Covey's description of Victor Frankle's experience in the death camps. Frankle found he could chose to not be pulled down by his experiences. In Covey's words Frankle had more liberty while he did not have freedom. So, in a sense he had that inalienable right to pursue happiness within his circumstances.

However, that is really a stretch to me. He was still in a frigging Nazi death camp.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."

What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of
free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.

What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?

You are confusing rights with instincts. I have an instinct to have sex. I don't believe I have a right to do so. I have an instinct to go where it's warm on a cold day. I dont believe I have a right to do so.

OK do you believe you have "natural responsibilities" by conscience?

That if you have sex, you are "naturally responsible" for the consequences?

Also, do you believe there is a natural law on "reciprocity" or equal justice.
That how you treat others, you enforce for yourself. Do you believe that is natural?

 

[The Rabbi]

I can't help you comprehend. The case has been made over and over in here. You can go ahead and believe that other men give you your rights. I have no problem with that kind of servitude. You're not asking me to participate in it, so I really couldn't care. But to claim no one has made the arguments is simply a lie.

I have debunked your fallacy of the false alternatives already. No need to do so again.
I have also debunked your claim that "oh, that's already been proven."
Either respond to the discussion of bugger off, like you promised about 5 pages ago.

You did no such thing. But claim victory if it makes you feel full.

I must have because you are still here, pages after declaring you were done with the thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe you call it something else besides "natural rights."

What do you call human nature, and the fact that we naturally have a sense of
free will, self-determination or whatever you call it.

What do you call the natural desires and need for freedom, peace, security, etc. that people have just by our human nature? if these are not "rights" to you,
are they just principles or elements/factors of our conscience?

You are confusing rights with instincts. I have an instinct to have sex. I don't believe I have a right to do so. I have an instinct to go where it's warm on a cold day. I dont believe I have a right to do so.

OK do you believe you have "natural responsibilities" by conscience?

That if you have sex, you are "naturally responsible" for the consequences?

Also, do you believe there is a natural law on "reciprocity" or equal justice.
That how you treat others, you enforce for yourself. Do you believe that is natural?

I have absolutely no idea what you are jabbering about. But it is off topic for sure. We are discussing Natural Rights, i.e. rights that allegedly people have simply by virtue of their being human beings.