Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[G.T.]

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

I just drew an alien with a football shaped head.

Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?

no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience.

that was really knuckle headed.

like, REALLY.

If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.

My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence.

Your point was dumb. Get over it.

 

[G.T.]

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant.

You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!

I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.

Yea, come back when you have something relevant to say on the origin of rights.

 

[dblack]

Since I didn't define them as such, the question is also irrelevant.

You also never answered your faulty logic about instincts and your ability to act onthem "proving" natural rights. G'luck with that one!

I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.

Yea, come back when you have something relevant to say on the origin of rights.

Oh, I haven't gone anywhere.

 

[G.T.]

I never mentioned instincts. My biggest difficulty is distinguishing obstinance from stupidity. Which is why I stopped arguing with you.

Yea, come back when you have something relevant to say on the origin of rights.

Oh, I haven't gone anywhere.

Word well, start a fire I brought some mallows. And don't fart on the sofa!

 

[The Rabbi]

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.

I'm not flip flopping at all. I am pretty clear on it. What is unclear is that it does not fit in with your binary view of the universe. Thus the trouble you are having processing it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I just drew an alien with a football shaped head.

Does it prove an alien with a football head exists because my mind invented it through cognition and experience?

no, and neither does it prove natural rights exist because man invented them through cognition and experience.

that was really knuckle headed.

like, REALLY.

If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.

My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence.

Your point was dumb. Get over it.

that's because your "invention, has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's not universal, it isn't egalitarian. But my position isn't "dumb". Because what I posited and what you replied to is the very definition of innate. You're simply being stubborn about accepting anything except your own notion. And you'll change words, perhaps even the meaning of them at times, in discourse in order to maintain it. Such as, yeah, rights are X Y Z. Then when pressed, you fall back on instinct.

It's boring. Believe whatever you want, brosif.


Good day!

 

[dblack]

Bored, yes. But in the end I led GT right into a trap he can not back out of. He agreed that rights were innate, by its very definition. Even if he decided "Shit!" and then switched it up to instinct as a fall back. it was a good run!

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.

Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.

 

[G.T.]

If you want to believe that an alien with a football is innate to your existence, I have no quarrels with that.

My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence.

Your point was dumb. Get over it.

that's because your "invention, has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's not universal, it isn't egalitarian. But my position isn't "dumb". Because what I posited and what you replied to is the very definition of innate. You're simply being stubborn about accepting anything except your own notion. And you'll change words, perhaps even the meaning of them at times, in discourse in order to maintain it. Such as, yeah, rights are X Y Z. Then when pressed, you fall back on instinct.

It's boring. Believe whatever you want, brosif.


Good day!

I didn't redefine anything to mean instinct.

That was done by other posters, in attempting to conflate rights with instincts.

also this serves as further proof that you lack the reading comprehension to have an in depth conversation, and it's def best you leave for the.......

Wait, you're still here yet saying goodbye!

I know that's at least 10 times you've done that.

 

[G.T.]

The only really interesting bit is why it's so important to define rights as a gift from the state.

That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.

Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.

Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.

 

[dblack]

That's not really all that interesting either. Rabbi will play flip flop on that one. It's not from the State, but apparently also not from other men! It's from society! You're making up what I said! Then answers, yes, to government being a construct of men. it's all one giant ball of semantics. Swapping out words where needed in order to maintain the position. if you've seen it once, you've seen it 100 times.

Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.

Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.

That old thing? Srsly?

Anyway... would y'all love to hear Jefferson's take on all this? I suspect he'd have quite the belly laugh.

It would be a fascinating conversation to be sure. First question for me - however uncomfortable, would have to be - Dude, slavery? WTF???

 

[The Rabbi]

My invention of it doesn't prove that its innate to my existence, same as the invention of rights doesn't prove they're innate to our existence.

Your point was dumb. Get over it.

that's because your "invention, has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's not universal, it isn't egalitarian. But my position isn't "dumb". Because what I posited and what you replied to is the very definition of innate. You're simply being stubborn about accepting anything except your own notion. And you'll change words, perhaps even the meaning of them at times, in discourse in order to maintain it. Such as, yeah, rights are X Y Z. Then when pressed, you fall back on instinct.

It's boring. Believe whatever you want, brosif.


Good day!

I didn't redefine anything to mean instinct.

That was done by other posters, in attempting to conflate rights with instincts.

also this serves as further proof that you lack the reading comprehension to have an in depth conversation, and it's def best you leave for the.......

Wait, you're still here yet saying goodbye!

I know that's at least 10 times you've done that.

I lost count so thanks.

 

[G.T.]

Authoritarians aren't happy unless there are boots to lick.

Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.

That old thing? Srsly?

Anyway... would y'all love to hear Jefferson's take on all this? I suspect he'd have quite the belly laugh.

It would be a fascinating conversation to be sure. First question for me - however uncomfortable, would have to be - Dude, slavery? WTF???

Yea, I don't know how an enlightened or supposedly enlightened being who is attempting to dictate the human condition to society doesn't make a

HUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE KABOOOOOOM STINK

about slavery.

 

[dblack]

Hyperbole and ad hominem. Nothing to do with rights and the proof of their origins. cmon son, you farted on the sofa.

That old thing? Srsly?

Anyway... would y'all love to hear Jefferson's take on all this? I suspect he'd have quite the belly laugh.

It would be a fascinating conversation to be sure. First question for me - however uncomfortable, would have to be - Dude, slavery? WTF???

Yea, I don't know how an enlightened or supposedly enlightened being who is attempting to dictate the human condition to society doesn't make a

HUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE KABOOOOOOM STINK

about slavery.

It's a fascinating question (sorry 'bout the off-topic). But I visited Moniticello a couple of years ago, and couldn't quite get it out of mind. How someone who did so much to advance the ideas that would eventually kill the practice of slavery, actively indulged it.

I suppose there's context and social norms etc... Maybe 200 years from now, eating animals will be outlawed and those of us eating meat now will be viewed, historically, as barbaric. Certainly some of the arguments for the vegetarian diet make sense, even if I can't bring myself to commit to them. Maybe that's where Jefferson and his kin were at the time.

 

[G.T.]

no man was ever perfect and no man was even close

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I need the government's help to think? Since when?

Your belief that the pyramids were built by aliens is affecting your judgement in other areas. Seek help.

 

[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?

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

Let me guess, you think the fact that people come from different countries proves that governments follow them around.

 

[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?

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

Prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Funny, I don' recall ever saying that. In fact, I specifically pointed out that animals exhibit a sense of right and wrong, and are even willing to sacrifice themselves to save others, which implies that all those highfalutin concepts you insist exist only in the minds of people actually exist outside the minds of people. Funny how not one person even addressed that, isn't it?

Until you show me how the government, or anyone else, can take my life and give it to someone else, I have an unalienable right to life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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. "

You have a hard time following simple economics, why would you expect to be able to follow philosophical concepts? To make it simple, until someone can show me how the government can give anyone life, you have no argument that government grants rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I did, you quoted my response to another poster.

Show me a single example of any government giving life to anyone and you will be able to make a case that the government grants rights. Until then, you are just going to be arguing in circles, unable to ever prove that you actually have a point.