Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[The Rabbi]

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.

So tell us how Jefferson defined it. Recall the Declaration says that governments exist to secure these rights.

 

[dblack]

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?

Exactly. Yes.

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?

Because they aren't alienated. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.

 

[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.

So tell us how Jefferson defined it.

As I said, he just meant 'freedom', as in freedom to think and act - i.e. free will.

Recall the Declaration says that governments exist to secure these rights.

The key here is that he didn't say ALL of these 'rights' (freedoms). Our freedoms inevitably come into conflict, which is why we need government. We create government to protect as many of our mutual freedoms as possible.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Exactly. Yes.

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?

Because they aren't alienated. Maybe that's the word that is the real source of confusion. It doesn't mean 'violated'. It means permanently revoked. No one can permanently revoke your free will - not without killing you.

So we've gone from "rights" to "freedom" to "free will"?
Plenty of people have been enslaved and/or persecuted in history. If they had rights that wouldn't be possible in any long term sense.

 

[G.T.]

You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms.

You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are BORN with them, and that they naturally exist.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms.

You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are BORN with them, and that they naturally exist.

You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will. Or something.

 

[dblack]

You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms.

You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are BORN with them, and that they naturally exist.

You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will. Or something.

Yet that's what the debate hinges on. So many of our arguments come down to simple disagreements on word meanings.

 

[G.T.]

You can philosophically/logically deduce that we SHOULD have certain inalienable rights/freedoms.

You can not philosophically/logically deduce that we are BORN with them, and that they naturally exist.

You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will. Or something.

Yet that's what the debate hinges on. So many of our arguments come down to simple disagreements on word meanings.

Well, not really.

All we're talking about is the source.

If you can state a logical proof as to what makes these certain freedoms inborn and inalienable, then your case is made.

My contention is that they were simply "declared" inalienable, by men.

That they actually ARE inalienable is unprovable; therefore, their existence rests on men's declaration as such and so men/governments/communities, etc, whatever, simply rolling with the concept that theyre inalienable is what keeps them in tact. Not that they inherently actually ARE.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

While words do have meaning, it becomes evident when people form a stance predicated off semantics. Which is why I gave up long ago playing repeater on this. Without being able to hold inalienable rights in your hands, some believe that only other men may validate the very idea that you're born with free will, and since free will involves cognition, one may reason. This leads to propositions such as the recognition of this demands self ownership, and certain associated rights that benchmark the importance of the proposition. Should man have never recognized his free will, and in so, inalienable rights, we'd still be living under divine rule. Or that such rule was also counterproductive tot he will of man.


At any rate, it's fine either way. Some believe they are born with certain inalienable rights. Granted to them by their very existence in nature. Some will call upon a god, while others will fall back on the notion that only other men may validate any right they perceive, which makes them merely privileges bestowed upon an individual by other men. We know where GT and Rabbi stand. It is men that validate their rights, their will, and perhaps their very existence.

 

[G.T.]

While words do have meaning, it becomes evident when people form a stance predicated off semantics. Which is why I gave up long ago playing repeater on this. Without being able to hold inalienable rights in your hands, some believe that only other men may validate the very idea that you're born with free will, and since free will involves cognition, one may reason. This leads to propositions such as the recognition of this demands self ownership, and certain associated rights that benchmark the importance of the proposition. Should man have never recognized his free will, and in so, inalienable rights, we'd still be living under divine rule. Or that such rule was also counterproductive tot he will of man.


At any rate, it's fine either way. Some believe they are born with certain inalienable rights. Granted to them by their very existence in nature. Some will call upon a god, while others will fall back on the notion that only other men may validate any right they perceive, which makes them merely privileges bestowed upon an individual by other men. We know where GT and Rabbi stand. It is men that validate their rights, their will, and perhaps their very existence.

Your posts are all hyperbole and ad hominem, and never once have you proved the assertion that rights are inborn. It cannot be proven. If it can, you have not done so or even made the slightest attempt, you are here to insult people like a child.

 

[dblack]

You can if you redefine rights as something we are born with, like free will. Or something.

Yet that's what the debate hinges on. So many of our arguments come down to simple disagreements on word meanings.

Well, not really.

All we're talking about is the source.

If you can state a logical proof as to what makes these certain freedoms inborn and inalienable, then your case is made.

My contention is that they were simply "declared" inalienable, by men.

That they actually ARE inalienable is unprovable; therefore, their existence rests on men's declaration as such and so men/governments/communities, etc, whatever, simply rolling with the concept that theyre inalienable is what keeps them in tact. Not that they inherently actually ARE.

It doesn't require proof because it's in the premise. The human mind is defined, in part, as a thing that possesses volition - free will. That's what makes it different than a machine or a calculator. I guess you could, in some sense, 'alienate' a person's innate freedoms by destroying their ability to think for themselves (by reducing them to some vegetative state, perhaps). But I think most of us would agree that, at that point, they're no longer 'human'.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no insult in there. That's the deduction I've taken away from this. I've even once again tried to show you HOW and WHY man formulated the philosophical stance of inalienable rights, yet you breezed over it and went for "you're being mean and not making any argument."
It's a classic, but I'm not buying it, dude.

 

[G.T.]

There is no insult in there. That's the deduction I've taken away from this. I've even once again tried to show you HOW and WHY man formulated the philosophical stance of inalienable rights, yet you breezed over it and went for "you're being mean and not making any argument."
It's a classic, but I'm not buying it, dude.

The how and why men formed the stance.............. is not in question. Maybe that's why you're confused.

The question is: do they come from said men, or are they actually pre existing.

In order anyone to know if they factually preexist, that must be proven.

It cannot and has not been.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

do they come from said men, or are they actually pre existing.

It's not that simple, As 350 plus posts has obviously determined. Before we can simplify it that far, we have make other deductions. When we say "pre-existing" does that mean before an individual was brought into the world? Or based upon his very existence in the world? By pre-existing do we mean BEFORE any interactions involving a social setting where others are to be considered? Such as a governance, community, society, etc..?

That's sort of why philosophy isn't all "to be, or not to be.." when you start breaking it down. I've tried to convey the answer to your question in several ways, for several pages of this thread.

 

[G.T.]

do they come from said men, or are they actually pre existing.

It's not that simple, As 350 plus posts has obviously determined. Before we can simplify it that far, we have make other deductions. When we say "pre-existing" does that mean before an individual was brought into the world? Or based upon his very existence in the world? By pre-existing do we mean BEFORE any interactions involving a social setting where others are to be considered? Such as a governance, community, society, etc..?

That's sort of why philosophy isn't all "to be, or not to be.." when you start breaking it down. I've tried to convey the answer to your question in several ways, for several pages of this thread.

Perfect, yes words have meanings I agree.

Given to you by nature is not the same thing as given to you by human philosophy - albeit you attempted the canard that "men are a part of nature." Yes, men are a part of nature, but nature in the sense of inalienable rights is "nature or your creator," meaning THE SUM OF HOW WE GOT HERE, not "a tiny part of nature, men's brain, gave you these rights philosophically."

Until you're past that canard, we're actually in agreement because I believe the rights came from man's philosophy and not from a creator, and not inherited unto by birth and birth alone.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Given to you by nature is not the same thing as given to you by human philosophy - albeit you attempted the canard that "men are a part of nature." Yes, men are a part of nature, but nature in the sense of inalienable rights is "nature or your creator," meaning THE SUM OF HOW WE GOT HERE, not "a tiny part of nature, men's brain, gave you these rights philosophically."

I'll say it again, I suppose. The idea behind calling them natural, is to make a critical distinction between whether or not each individual (egalitarian, as Rabbi disagrees) has them from his "natural" place on earth, or whether or not other men bestow them. Remember the time frame in which we recognized these "rights". It's not a tangible assertion where you get a box upon entering the world that contains the tools to make such claims. It is a philosophical understanding. It's part of when men began enlightenment. Where science, and human behavioral observation beat out religious dogma of divine right.

That's why the distinction was made. it's essentially comes down to "for lack of a better phrasing". And that each man may have these rights (even though humans are hypocrites and say it then violate them from some) as he has reason, free will and cognition (which is where the game of semantics began).

 

[G.T.]

Given to you by nature is not the same thing as given to you by human philosophy - albeit you attempted the canard that "men are a part of nature." Yes, men are a part of nature, but nature in the sense of inalienable rights is "nature or your creator," meaning THE SUM OF HOW WE GOT HERE, not "a tiny part of nature, men's brain, gave you these rights philosophically."

I'll say it again, I suppose. The idea behind calling them natural, is to make a critical distinction between whether or not each individual (egalitarian, as Rabbi disagrees) has them from his "natural" place on earth, or whether or not other men bestow them. Remember the time frame in which we recognized these "rights". It's not a tangible assertion where you get a box upon entering the world that contains the tools to make such claims. It is a philosophical understanding. It's part of when men began enlightenment. Where science, and human behavioral observation beat out religious dogma of divine right.

That's why the distinction was made. it's essentially comes down to "for lack of a better phrasing". And that each man may have these rights (even though humans are hypocrites and say it then violate them from some) as he has reason, free will and cognition (which is where the game of semantics began).

The problem is -that at the end of the day "men" deciding upon them philosophically makes them necessarily "granted" by men. Not by birth.

Or put less poetically:

men philosophically concluding youre born with these rights is the same as them coming from men - not from birth, so the concept of them coming from nature/creator/birth is flawed from the get go.




It's also not logically provable that they come from nature or a creator. Not at all. Not even by a long shot. They don't have to be a physical thing to be proven, they have to simply be a testable fact..




The only rational conclusion is that "men agree" that these "should be granted by birthright."

Not that they inherently are, based on......................what, destiny?

 

[G.T.]

unalienable rights are an abstract idea, not a provable assertion

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, well We're about to go round the circle again and I ain't goin'. Enjoy.

 

[G.T.]

OK, well We're about to go round the circle again and I ain't goin'. Enjoy.

all of your posts have led to the conclusion that they're unalienable because men wanted them to be, men decided that they should be........................

not that they actually are


that they are in actuality inborn, is nothing you can prove.

it is an unprovable assertion. you cannot, you have not, you wont