Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.

We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask

"is the color blue really blue."

it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The entire concept of ontology is abstract. In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation".

And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.

You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.

Not at all. I'm using the term in its most concrete sense relative to the rational and physical aspects of being in common experience, and Rabbi knows that as I've made that abundantly clear again and again.

I wasn't addressing you, sir/ma'am. I was addressing GT's conceptual boundary.

 

[G.T.]

So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.

We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask

"is the color blue really blue."

it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.

"Nothing is real in your perception."


That is false.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?

Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman.

But to your re-edited question -

1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me.

2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.

Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.

We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask

"is the color blue really blue."

it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.

"Nothing is real in your perception."


That is false.

if we're going off abstract concept, then no. Nothing is real.

 

[G.T.]

So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?

Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman.

But to your re-edited question -

1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me.

2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.

Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"

You're extrapolating something irrationally.

In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract.

Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute.



Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).

 

[G.T.]

So is reality, being, existing, etc..etc..etc... like I said, mental masturbation. Nothing is real in your perception, unless it's tangible. But even tangibility can be called into question when concept is challenged in such a way. All laws, all social order, right down to the very understanding of being, existing can not be proven in any sense.

We've just reverted hundreds of years of philosophical meandering to ask

"is the color blue really blue."

it's a fun parlor trick for college kids, but when discussing distinct concepts of philosophy it offers nothing. Still a fun discussion if that was the goal. I do not think that was the goal here.

"Nothing is real in your perception."


That is false.

if we're going off abstract concept, then no. Nothing is real.

"we're going off?"

What the hell does this even mean.

Calling one ting abstract is not the same as calling everything in existence abstract. You make that up out of whole cloth.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman.

But to your re-edited question -

1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me.

2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.

Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"

You're extrapolating something irrationally.

In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract.

Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute.



Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).

It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.

dilemma of determinism is where we're at now.

 

[G.T.]

Free wil is just as abstract and challenged in philosophy via determinists as that of rights, when we go down this road. Nothing is clear, everything is a question. No foundation is established, and the conversation reverts to "how do we know the color blue is the color blue?"

You're extrapolating something irrationally.

In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract.

Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute.



Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).

It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.

I'm not the one conflating all terms with all of their abstract forms, that's you doing that.

I'm pretty good with "operated by an outside being" as having a basic meaning in English and do not need to extrapolate the abstract from it to determine what I meant by that.

And it goes the same for determining if free will is real or abstract. It is real because it is provable. If you can disprove it, be my guest.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Quantum mechanics, anyone?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

This is the sort nonsense that historically clueless leftists spout. Because the imperatives of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof do exist, it's not possible to enslave or persecute others for any significant length of time without incurring the wrath, as it were, of some very serious consequences. The downfall of every civilization now residing in the ash heap of history goes to the depravity of man's inhumanity to man under the banner of one tyrannical regime or another. God is not mocked, and He is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities.

You were roundly refuted on that score here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-16.html#post8866687

And again here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863493

And you are refuted again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're extrapolating something irrationally.

In Stating that natural rights is an abstract concept, it cannot be extrapolated that the person is also stating that all of existence is abstract.

Sorry - you surmised that all on your own and it doesn't compute.



Free will is not abstract. It is provable. More than one being does not operate your central nervous system, thus free will. Your will can only be influenced, it cannot be operated by an outside being. (yet - science actually is working on this).

It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.

I'm not the one conflating all terms to their abstract forms, that's you doing that.

I'm pretty good with "operated by an outside being" as having a basic meaning in English one and do not need to extrapolate to the abstract with it.

And it goes the same for determining if free will is real or abstract. It is real because it is provable. If you can disprove it, be my guest.

Physical models put forth are both deterministic and indeterministic. Left to interpretation though quantum mechanics. So it isn't provable. it's a concept. But again, i feel you're prescribing a specific, personal definition to free will. Which means you can then give it origination and break new ground.

 

[G.T.]

It's not provable. Its a concept. The only thing that can be proven scientifically regarding free will is the potential to suggest different ways to predict human behavior. That doesn't mean it's not simply a concept. It is. Free will has to be defined a specific way being a concept. So saying "operated by an outside being" has it's own conceptual problems. We can really do this all day. How do we assign origination to free? Well, there we go again.

I'm not the one conflating all terms to their abstract forms, that's you doing that.

I'm pretty good with "operated by an outside being" as having a basic meaning in English one and do not need to extrapolate to the abstract with it.

And it goes the same for determining if free will is real or abstract. It is real because it is provable. If you can disprove it, be my guest.

Physical models put forth are both deterministic and indeterministic. Left to interpretation though quantum mechanics.

Let me know when they come up with someone else is operating your brain, as a breakthrough. I'll pay pal ya some cheddar for your prediction.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The entire concept of ontology is abstract. In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation".

And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.

You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.

Not at all. I'm using the term in its most concrete sense relative to the rational and physical aspects of being in common experience, and Rabbi knows that as I've made that abundantly clear again and again.

I wasn't addressing you, sir/ma'am. I was addressing GT's conceptual boundary.

It's Sir. Sorry, Take, I had just used the term in a post above yours.

 

[G.T.]

That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.

Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own.

My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that will can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.

 

[midcan5]

There is no such thing as a natural right.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-2.html#post5796207
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-4.html#post5799892
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-5.html#post5805092
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-7.html#post5806946
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5814461
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5818474
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5824790
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-8.html#post5950608
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5977824
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan-9.html#post5997532

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a self prescribed definition of free will you have going.

Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own.

My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that will can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.

Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.

 

[natstew]

Back to "Rights before Government":

All Governments can do is limit, control, take away our rights.
GOVERNMENT is power, power corrupts, corruption never expands rights, and that's why our Constitution severely limits the powers of our Government. Those limitations were violated a long, long time ago. We live under an oppressive, tyrannical, corrupt Government. Obama has surpassed all previous Presidents when it comes to tyranny.

Before Government there were Rights. Our Government was created to protect those rights.

 

[natstew]

The "Experiment of Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" that Lincoln spoke of at the Gettysburg National Cemetery Dedication is a great failure.