Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[G.T.]

You haven't posted any logical assertion that proves that rights are inborn.

G'luck in the future.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Philosophy is tough, I get it.

 

[dblack]

Philosophy is tough, I get it.

I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the protection of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?

 

[G.T.]

Philosophy is tough, I get it.

I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the protection of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?

Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.

The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.

 

[dblack]

Philosophy is tough, I get it.

I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the protection of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?

Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.

The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Philosophy is tough, I get it.

I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the protection of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?

The way I'm understanding the position, that's simply instinct. Which is of course the defining difference between cognition and instinct. Men work off instinct in the same way animals work off cognition. Which is how we've devised entire philosophical theorems/propositions that can guide the existence of man beyond the realms of the rest of the animal kingdom. This concept seems to be too intellectually vague for some. So the fall back appears to be that man's only intellectual asset is in the form of a collective. From this collective, principles are established to dictate social norms. Or, more to the point, other men grant the "rights" we discuss. It's more or less simply a privilege rather than a right. as there are none without a government to grant such privilege.


oh well.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the protection of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?

Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.

The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

Penalty Box! -10 points!

Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them. As the Rabbi says, you can not prove that they had such abilities if someone can remove them via a violent resolution. So the only way to determine that they had such a right is through enforcement by government. Which is where you gain your privileges. Through other men. Alone you're simply an animal in the kingdom living off instinct. it's a fascinating proposition say none the least.

 

[dblack]

Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.

The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

Penalty Box! -10 points!

Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them.

Inalienable rights are. That's the entire point. You're making the same mistake as most everyone else here.

 

[G.T.]

I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the protection of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?

Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.

The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

That's a circular argument.

I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.

The argument is where do inborn rights come from.

The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.

The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.

Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."

That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, they do.

So you've had reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, and mere assertion. I can't remember if there was an ipse dixit fallacy in there as well.
When you get an actual argument come back and we'll talk.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

Penalty Box! -10 points!

Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them.

Inalienable rights are. That's the entire point. You're making the same mistake as most everyone else here.

I'm being deliberately facetious.

 

[dblack]

Penalty Box! -10 points!

Rights aren't egalitarian. Not everyone gets to have them.

Inalienable rights are. That's the entire point. You're making the same mistake as most everyone else here.

I'm being deliberately facetious.

Heh.. ok. I wasn't wondering what was going on.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, they do.

So you've had reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, and mere assertion. I can't remember if there was an ipse dixit fallacy in there as well.
When you get an actual argument come back and we'll talk.

Question mark is, will you ever point out the proper fallacies with this constant lobbing of them into the discussion. It seems to be your new thing, but you're not getting them right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Philosophy is tough, I get it.

I think they're just stuck on equating a freedom with the protection of the freedom. Maybe it would more clear if you consider that there are a multitude of ways to protect freedom - not just government. We can protect our own freedoms, for example. But since most of us don't want to pack heat and always be ready for conflict, we create governments to do it for us.

For those of you denying the inalienable rights concept, do you recognize that someone who is completely alone, with no one around, with no government, has complete freedom?

Someone completely alone does not need rights. Rights are a description of the relationship between individuals and government. Take away one of those and the idea of rights is unnecessary.
So the argument fails.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, they do.

So you've had reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, and mere assertion. I can't remember if there was an ipse dixit fallacy in there as well.
When you get an actual argument come back and we'll talk.

Question mark is, will you ever point out the proper fallacies with this constant lobbing of them into the discussion. It seems to be your new thing, but you're not getting them right.

I did point out hte proper fallacies. I am waiting for a proper argument.

 

[dblack]

Philosophy is apparently difficult, which is why certain posters skip right past it and go the 5th grader route of simple insults like the poster above you.

The problem with your assertion that these rights are inborn is that it's an un-provable concept. Of course, it's the best way forward for the species, mind you, but their efficiency does not prove their inborn existence. N'or does the happenstance that when you're alone you're free.

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

That's a circular argument.

I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.

The argument is where do inborn rights come from.

The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.

The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.

Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."

That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.

Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).

Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.

 

[dblack]

Someone completely alone does not need rights. Rights are a description of the relationship between individuals and government. Take away one of those and the idea of rights is unnecessary.
So the argument fails.

Do you realize that you guys are actually making the circular argument? Sure, if you define 'right' as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", it will have no meaning without the presence of a government. But that's not how Jefferson defined it.

 

[G.T.]

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

That's a circular argument.

I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.

The argument is where do inborn rights come from.

The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.

The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.

Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."

That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.

Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).

Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.

You don't have the inalienable "freedom" to live, either. If you can logically deduce why it's inalienable, I am all ears.

Problem is, it cannot be logically deduced.

That is the sticking point. That means that the thinking is inept, and the concept is incorrect.

When it can be proven, it will enshrine its viability in the halls of man foreva and eva and eva, but it cannot.

And stop conflating myself and the rabbi with the whole "the government" conversation. THAT WASNT ME.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you're just reading too much into the concept. Inalienable freedom is nothing more than free will. It's a recognition that the single fundamental trait of a thinking creature is its ability to conceive and act. Short of killing a person, you can't remove that ability from them, and it doesn't "come from" any source other than that person's own mind.

That's a circular argument.

I live therefore I have a pre-existing right to life granted by my inherent being........... is not a logical deduction.

The argument is where do inborn rights come from.

The answer is that they came from men sitting down and deciding that the best way to preserve the freedom of the individual is to call these rights unalienable.

The problem right there is that men are inherently the source - to begin with.

Government doesn't even need to enter the equation, necessarily, in the discussion of "where these rights came from."

That they came from reasoning - not from pre-existence - and so their concept(being inborn) is fundamentally flawed.

Again, I'll point out that you're overloading the word 'right' here. Jefferson merely meant 'freedom', and you're insisting that it means 'something that must be protected by government' (thus your conclusion that it has no meaning without government).

Seriously, if you want to understand inalienable rights, think of them instead as inalienable freedoms. It might clear things up.

You've substituted one word for another. That isn't an argument.
Where do inalienable freedoms come from? Do I have an inalienable freedom to steal your stuff? To kill you if I dont like you? To kill you if I think you're a threat? Is there an inalenienable freedom to wear a hat? To speak French? To advocate genocide? To advocate assasinations?
For most of human history, no one had freedom of any kind. How can there be an inalienable freedom when it was clearly alienated from most of humanity?