Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[GreenBean]

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?

Not a very good analogy. There is no "society" native to Anarctica - the only people there are researchers and minimal commercial activity - very minimal, and yes there is Government of sorts -n extension ofthe Governments that sent people there to conduct research

 

[G.T.]

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?

Being alive = / = possessing a right to be alive
murdering someone = / = possessing a right to murder someone

 

[GreenBean]

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?

Rights are not something that man was born with, despite the use of the grandiose and assumpive term "inalienable" by Tommy Jefferson - your rights under the Constitution could disappear in a heartbeat. Such as the Asians who were interned in WWII on the west coast, the Native Americans who were beaten off their lands - although they weren't considered "Men"- they were sub-human savages [as per the thinking of the day]. The African Americans - who never really had them till the last half Century and so on ...

Government , as it was intended "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is the only guarantoor of those so called "inalienable" rights - and it is far from perfect in its duties of guranteeing them.

So far as being alive = the right to live ---- explain that to a colin ferguson , or some other wack job while you're looking down the barrel of his Glock and you don't have one to defend yourself with because the Govt. says its a no no .

 

[G.T.]

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?

Rights are not something that man was born with, despite the use of the grandiose and assumpive term "inalienable" by Tommy Jefferson - your rights under the Constitution could disappear in a heartbeat. Such as the Asians who were interned in WWII on the west coast, the Native Americans who were beaten off their lands - although they weren't considered "Men"- they were sub-human savages [as per the thinking of the day]. The African Americans - who never really had them till the last half Century and so on ...

Government , as it was intended "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is the only guarantoor of those so called "inalienable" rights - and it is far from perfect in its duties of guranteeing them.

This is the problem with the entire conversation.

The only fallback people have - when they think this ALLLLlll the way through - is to say that men are born with certain inalienable rights because....................................men said so.

There has been no logically proven foundation otherwise, save for very weak-willed attempts such as "your instincts tell you to stay alive, thus, you have a RIGHT!" /derp

 

[editec]

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.

Clayton,

Please list those "innate rights" that you believe "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."

I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.

What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?

Every innate right ceases when you die.

Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.

Shall I go on?


Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "

 

[GreenBean]

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.

Clayton,

Please list those "innate rights" that you believe "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."

I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.

What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?

Every innate right ceases when you die.

Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.

Shall I go on?


Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "

Clayton exists only as the extension of some reefer huffing pill popping lame ass liberals fantasy ejaculated at us via his keyboard. He's not a real person , just an expression of someones toxic mental dysphoria

 

[The Rabbi]

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?"

No actually it wasn't. Look at the posts.
And no, rights dont exist without a government. Especially since all of the rights mentioned deal with things governments cannot outlaw.

 

[dblack]

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.

Clayton,

Please list those "innate rights" that you believe "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."

I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.

What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?

Every innate right ceases when you die.

Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.

Shall I go on?


Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "

It's the distinction between 'taken' and 'violated'. Government can't separate from you your ability to think and act for yourself (which is really all we're talking about). They can, anyone can, violate your rights at anytime by blocking your actions. The point isn't that there's something magical that prevents others from interfering with your inalienable rights, just that they preexist any agency that we create to protect them. We have perfect freedom even when (indeed, only when) we're completely alone. It isn't until we interact with others that our freedom is at risk.

It's a philosophical point, without obvious practical application. Which is likely why it confounds so many people. But it does have significance, especially when you consider different alternatives (to government) for securing freedom.

 

[dblack]

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?

Did you? Try again. On this, Clayton is 100% right.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Clayton,

Please list those "innate rights" that you believe "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."

I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.

What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?

Every innate right ceases when you die.

Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.

Shall I go on?


Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "

It's the distinction between 'taken' and 'violated'. Government can't separate from you your ability to think and act for yourself (which is really all we're talking about). They can, anyone can, violate your rights at anytime by blocking your actions. The point isn't that there's something magical that prevents others from interfering with your inalienable rights, just that they preexist any agency that we create to protect them. We have perfect freedom even when (indeed, only when) we're completely alone. It isn't until we interact with others that our freedom is at risk.

It's a philosophical point, without obvious practical application. Which is likely why it confounds so many people. But it does have significance, especially when you consider different alternatives (to government) for securing freedom.

There's no logical proof, or deductive reasoning, behind our rights being inborn and inalienable. Therefore, it is not philosophical at all, it's pseudo intellect.

 

[G.T.]

Humans and other animals have instincts.

Instincts do not prove inborn rights.

Humans want to live.

This does not prove an inborn right to live.

Humans want to be happy.

This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness.

& fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.

 

[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.

Clayton,

Please list those "innate rights" that you believe "that neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man."

I can get past the idea that rights like these come with state of being...what I am having a lot of trouble understanding is how you imagine that they cannot be taken away.

What "right" that you have cannot be taken away by death?

Every innate right ceases when you die.

Your right to freedom of movement stops when you are imprisoned.

Shall I go on?


Please clarify what you mean when you say "neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. "

It's the distinction between 'taken' and 'violated'. Government can't separate from you your ability to think and act for yourself (which is really all we're talking about). They can, anyone can, violate your rights at anytime by blocking your actions. The point isn't that there's something magical that prevents others from interfering with your inalienable rights, just that they preexist any agency that we create to protect them. We have perfect freedom even when (indeed, only when) we're completely alone. It isn't until we interact with others that our freedom is at risk.

It's a philosophical point, without obvious practical application. Which is likely why it confounds so many people. But it does have significance, especially when you consider different alternatives (to government) for securing freedom.

As I wrote in my first post, those arguing for natural rights cannot distinguish any difference between infringing on those rights and the non existence of those rights. You've just proven my point.
If gov't can infringe and nullify those rights without consequence, then do they really even exist?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, they do.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Humans and other animals have instincts.

Instincts do not prove inborn rights.

Humans want to live.

This does not prove an inborn right to live.

Humans want to be happy.

This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness.

& fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.

Why is it you can not find the distinction between instinct and cognition? It's like you got stuck at a skip in the record.

 

[G.T.]

Still no logical proof that they do, only mere assertion.

I'd love to see the because a, then b rational breakdown.

Of course, it doesn't exist.

 

[G.T.]

Humans and other animals have instincts.

Instincts do not prove inborn rights.

Humans want to live.

This does not prove an inborn right to live.

Humans want to be happy.

This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness.

& fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.

Why is it you can not find the distinction between instinct and cognition? It's like you got stuck at a skip in the record.

I was addressing someone else's point about instinct, so uh, here's a napkin for that eggwash

 

[G.T.]

Humans and other animals have instincts.

Instincts do not prove inborn rights.

Humans want to live.

This does not prove an inborn right to live.

Humans want to be happy.

This does not prove an inborn right to seek happiness.

& fwiw - - - - - I am glad that men invented the concept of basic human rights and I wish that they were perfectly adhered to. I simply disagree with "where they came from," and maintain they came from men's brains and not self evidence or nature.

Why is it you can not find the distinction between instinct and cognition? It's like you got stuck at a skip in the record.

also - you can replace "instincts do not" and replace it with "cognition does not" and it still cannot be defeated with logic. g'luck, you'll need it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Clearly it's over your head. Clearly.

 

[G.T.]

Clearly it's over your head. Clearly.

You're here to insult people and offer no logical deduction.

We get it, you're better off in the flame wars areas though.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We've gone over it already. I'm not getting back in that hamster wheel to no where again. Believe whatever you like.