Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[The Rabbi]

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.

When there is no government people suddenly lose the ability to live? How does that work, exactly, because all of our rights exist because, despite the claims of totalitarian governments, everyone is born without direct intervention of the government. Then we have the ability to think, from which our freedom of speech and religion come from. I have seen absolutely no evidence that would even begin to support the claim that, without government, no one can think.

You seem to have trouble separating your ideas from other people's. Why I don't know. Who suggested in the absence of gov't people couldn't live?
An ability to think does not imply any kind of right to think, much less speak or practice religion.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them. That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.

No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.

What do you see infringing as? What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?

 

[GreenBean]

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .

Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !

Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are. People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .

That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways . It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.

That presumes that this so called gang would only be after me. Which is highly improbable. People will band together when they see that this sort of action is taking place against neighbors, etc. But it does beg the question - since government is a gang that by any standard today, is nothing more than organized crime, why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? I think the answer is equally absurd. Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote.

why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? -
Fear,
apathy,
ignorance - as you stated yourself most people feel they are part of it via the vote.
Lack of leadership and direction

 

[GreenBean]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government. Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs . Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.

Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.

See the flaw in your argument yet?

No - do you see the flaw in yours ? where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

When there is no government people suddenly lose the ability to live? How does that work, exactly, because all of our rights exist because, despite the claims of totalitarian governments, everyone is born without direct intervention of the government. Then we have the ability to think, from which our freedom of speech and religion come from. I have seen absolutely no evidence that would even begin to support the claim that, without government, no one can think.

You seem to have trouble separating your ideas from other people's. Why I don't know. Who suggested in the absence of gov't people couldn't live?
An ability to think does not imply any kind of right to think, much less speak or practice religion.

Aren't you the guy that keeps telling me that, without government, there are no rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them. That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.

No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.

What do you see infringing as? What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?

What's the difference between being taxed on wages and not being paid at all?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.

What do you see infringing as? What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?

What's the difference between being taxed on wages and not being paid at all?

What's the difference between a cheeseburger and a toilet bowl?
Why don't you answer the question instead of making stupid comparisons?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government. Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs . Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.

Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.

See the flaw in your argument yet?

No - do you see the flaw in yours ? where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.

If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.

See the flaw in your argument yet?

No - do you see the flaw in yours ? where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.

If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?

Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?

 

[GreenBean]

Because, without government, everyone would simply fall over dead.

See the flaw in your argument yet?

No - do you see the flaw in yours ? where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.

If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?

They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be. Survival of the fittest

Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No - do you see the flaw in yours ? where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.

If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?

Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?

Is that a yes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No - do you see the flaw in yours ? where did you get "everyone would fall over dead" from , perhaps I'm missing something but you're not making any sense.

If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?

They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be. Survival of the fittest

Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.

There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?

 

[The Rabbi]

If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?

Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?

Is that a yes?

Your previous question was "if rights dont exist without the government how can a person maintain their (sic) life without government."
How is that subject to a yes or no answer?

I sense you aren't doing well in this debate.

 

[The Rabbi]

If rights don't exist without the government how can a person maintain their life without government?

They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be. Survival of the fittest

Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.

There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?

There aren't any people there either. But ask the penguins about cruelty from the Leopard Seal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of one’s rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.

And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.

This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republic’s citizens’ civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of one’s rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.

And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.

This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republic’s citizens’ civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.

Nonsense, all of it.
Rights are obviously alienable. People are deprived of rights all the time. Rights do not exist absent government.
Did you read any part of this thread?

 

[beagle9]

Our rights are inalienable in that they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they are innate, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

That a given government elects to ignore the innate nature of one’s rights does not mitigate the fact that inalienable rights do indeed exist.

And while our rights exist absent government, whether recognized by the state or not, government is nonetheless necessary to provide a structure in which rights might be protected and expressed.

This, then, illustrates the genius of the American Constitutional Republic, far superior to democracy or any other form of government, as the Republic’s citizens’ civil liberties are acknowledge and codified by the Constitution, and subject only to the rule of law.

Ok, now where has it all gone wrong ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you not understand the difference between rights and existence?

Is that a yes?

Your previous question was "if rights dont exist without the government how can a person maintain their (sic) life without government."
How is that subject to a yes or no answer?

I sense you aren't doing well in this debate.

My previous question to you was, "Aren't you the guy who says rights don't exist without the government?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They continue breathing, continue eating, and learn to fight for their survival if need be. Survival of the fittest

Simply because their rights are no longer guaranteed without Govt. does not mean they cease to exist - they live on in a brutal fashion, or they die as the case may be - but their exitence doesn'tend when Govt. ends.

There is no government in Antarctica, I have never hear about a breakout of brutality there. Did I miss something?

There aren't any people there either. But ask the penguins about cruelty from the Leopard Seal.

There are people there.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You cant secure any rights you think you should have unless there is a form of government. You make up what rights you want and band together with like minded people to protect those rights. The only real right you have is to fight for your life. No one can take that from you but you.

Speak for yourself, I can secure my rights without the government. I do not need the government to tell when to think.

No actually you cant. You need help. All I have to do is come enforce my will on you and take your rights. For that matter any predator can come and take away your supposed right to live. What rights do you have if you are dead? Are you having trouble seeing? Where did I say you need the government to tell you when to think?