Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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.

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.

Which is such a rare event that it deserves special notice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Cognito ergo sum.

Damn, it seems that the logical argument and deductive reasoning behind natural rights actually predates the people you claim invented the concept.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, the problem is you are missing the entire concept of what unalienable rights are. Unalienable means they cannot be taken or transferred. All you have to do to prove that these rights are not unalienable is provide examples of any person or agent taking these rights and granting them to another person. If you are correct, and they don't actually exist, prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because you cannot give it to anyone else.

End of argument, or are you going to insist that unalienable doesn't mean "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.

 

[dblack]

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

Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.

Nope.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, these two are not related in that way, I agree, and that is NOT my point.

My point is that the SAME principles that others express in terms of "natural rights"
CAN be explained in other terms that are relevant to you. That is what I mean
by being universal to all people.

If you believe in instinct, it can be explained in those terms.
If not, what terms do you use for human behavior patterns.

No, we DON'T have to believe in or prove terms of moral or rights
to AGREE on basic patterns or rules of human behavior.

Do you believe there are rules or laws of psychology that govern human behavior?
Those can be used to describe the same "mechanism".

It's the PRINCIPLES or CONCEPTS that are universal.
Of course we are not all going to agree how to express them
because every person I know sees it differently!

Having an instinct does not prove having a Right.

We want to live.
We are good natured.
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc

That means nothing in the discussion of the origin of rights. It's of no logical consequence.

I will make a separate thread to list different applications or examples
of these patterns of behavior, and ask other people also.

We may never be able to prove, and don't have to agree,
if these are internal or external, self-existent or man-made.

As long as we find terms and rules WE AGREE describe what we believe is
effective and constructive to follow in society, that is what is important in practice.

What are the principles we agree on?
None of the theory is as important as agreeing how to operate in real life.

Regarding universal laws: I believe all people's views or systems can "align" because the core concepts are UNIVERSAL even where our perceptions or terms are diverse, relative and unique to each person. We still follow the same basic patterns because we're human.

 

[gnarlylove]

Natural rights do not exist intrinsically. They are inventive descriptions to aide in equal treatment of human beings. It's akin to "law." Law is a rigid set of precepts that can be changed.

Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.

The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.

So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights.

Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.

But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.

Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.

Furthermore, there are[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Moral-Cognition-Linguistic-Cognitive/dp/0521855780"] studies being enumerated[/ame] that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hard-wired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to fairly treat each other without having to sign the UN Declaration. But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way. It is up to the people to keep fighting for just treatment and for us to keep expanding the parameters where rights apply, including economic rights or changing the whole concept altogether. One way to look at it is that we are held back by our narrow understanding of rights. We need to step back further and examine what a human life is and what is must have in order to be and basing a society on these findings, not on the profit motive that annihilates equal treatment.

 

[dblack]

Natural rights do not exist intrinsically. They are inventive descriptions to aide in equal treatment of human beings. It's akin to "law." Law is a rigid set of precepts that can be changed.

Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.

The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.

So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights.

Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.

But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.

Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.

Furthermore, there are studies being enumerated that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hardwired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to treat each other. But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way.

Poop

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ah, a deterministic argument. yuk yuk yuk

 

[emilynghiem]

If you are able to act on the instinct, then it's a right to act on it.

Don't you mean freedom?
Hypothetically you have free will to do something within your ability.

As for rights, by natural laws they come with responsibilities.
This is like the natural law of justice or karma, cause and effect, the reactions to your actions.

So if you abuse your freedom to violate someone else's right or freedoms, you will be protested or petitioned to redress grievances or pay restitution to resolve the conflict.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes, the slaves have rights as the slaves do today.
Just because we don't fight for equal rights of slaves in Asia
as we do workers in America, doesn't mean rights aren't being violated.

Because of economic structures dependent on slave labor right now,
India could not even ban child labor or more children would starve to death
than would be saved. Human rights are violated on a daily basis.
Doesn't mean they don't exist.

In practice, the defense of human rights depends on our ability to set up alternatives.

We need to convert more of the factories into schools, to create sustainable
jobs for the women and children in education, to break the cycle of poverty
while still letting the students work, to keep their economy going, but
manage these programs where nobody is being abused.

There are more programs today doing more to eradicate poverty
and trafficking, but the demand is still greater. So we still have slavery
in the meantime, where these people do not have EQUAL ACCESS
to resources and programs to meet equal standards on human rights.

and yes, slavery has been going on a long time.
you can see the progression to eradicate poverty to reduce war, oppression and crime,
but you can see we are not there yet. people are not yet treated as equal
because we don't have equal access to sustainable systems of education and services.

 

[emilynghiem]

yes and no.
man did not create human nature and the rules we respond to.
yes we did create the expression of these patterns and principles as statutory laws.
but the concepts behind them, and why they work to govern people
are not just because people are taught or conditioned to follow them.

it is because the laws follow the principles of human nature.
it is like cutting hair to follow the natural pattern that it grows in.

if you go against the grain, then people do not follow.

so it is with free will and the natural desire to petition to redress grievances
when people feel our interests or consent are being imposed upon or excluded.

systems of laws work where the follow the natural patterns of human behavior.
these laws and religions are expressions of the principles so we can agree what procedures to follow; but we did not make up the pscyhology of human behavior,
and what works and what does not work with people. We are just trying to "figure it
out" and perfect our models so we can manage our populations on a sustainable basis.

Natural rights do not exist intrinsically. They are inventive descriptions to aide in equal treatment of human beings. It's akin to "law." Law is a rigid set of precepts that can be changed.

Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.

The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.

So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights.

Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.

But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.

Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.

Furthermore, there are studies being enumerated that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hard-wired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to fairly treat each other without having to sign the UN Declaration.

But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way. It is up to the people to keep fighting for just treatment and for us to keep expanding the parameters where rights apply, including economic rights or changing the whole concept altogether. One way to look at it is that we are held back by our narrow understanding of rights. We need to step back further and examine what a human life is and what is must have in order to be and basing a society on these findings, not on the profit motive that annihilates equal treatment.

it's not just the profit motive but the relationships between people and groups.

if we do not "trust or forgive" certain people or groups, the relationship becomes competitive instead of collaborative.

also look up the difference between scarcity mentality and abundance mentality.
people who operate by fear and negative or divisive mindsets
are less effective than people who work in positive, inclusive ways.

this mentality makes the difference between corruption and conflicts in situations
or pooling resources and teamwork together to solve problems instead.

it isn't the system to blame but what approach people take, if it is divisive,
negative, or unforgiving

any system can be made to work, it depends on the people and what they do with it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sanctity is a human philosophical concept.

Edit:

Saw your edit.
That we have free will does not speak to the origin of our rights, it only speaks to our desire for said rights.

Thank you, G.T. The first version confounded the point, expressing something I didn't intend.

However, the principle of the sanctity of human life is not a mere construct of culture. You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic metaphysical presupposition. Good luck proving that in the face of the classical laws of logic.

The principle of the sanctity of human life is embedded in God Himself, who is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities, not the stuff of some cultural construct.

And I already substantiated my premise here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863493

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

You cannot assert a God and have a conversation with me.

I'm an agnostic and not going down that road.

I can prove that it's at least currently a construct of human culture quite simply by pointing to the fact that without proof of a deity, it's the ONLY other place it could come from. And humans have not proven a deity. And I won't have a God debate.

Sorry for the delay. I had to take care of some things.

The irrelevancies of supposed social constructs vs. the realities of self-preservation and self-interest

Uh, currently, the reigning opinion in the epistemological literature, due to recent advances in the neurological sciences, asserts that along with a universal baseline of geometric-logistic predilections: humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the human brain. The traditional, Aristotelian blank slate of Empiricism, at least in this respect, is dead.

But there's no need to linger on that as the imperatives of natural law are extrapolated from the self-evident exigencies of human nature and historical experience.

In short, I'm not raising "a God debate." You missed my point entirely.

My contention has absolutely nothing to do with any empirical proof of God's existence. There is no such thing anyway, beyond what is, nevertheless, a very powerful teleological argument backed by a very powerful ontological argument.

I have no interest in proving the existence of God to anyone or getting into any theological discussion as such. I don't have to prove Gods' existence in order to demonstrate the actualities of innate, inalienable rights, as I have already demonstrated in the above . . .

here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367

. . . and again here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

This is the point that matters, once again and more specifically: You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition. Good luck providing a credible argument in the face of the law of contradiction for that.

Like Rabbi, whose mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door precisely because he's never gotten beyond the first principles of things in his entire life, you have yet to demonstrate the validity of your underlying presupposition that certain rights or principles are merely the stuff of social constructs.

Any one can say that, but merely stating that as if it were an argument, rather than what it is, a bald statement hanging in midair, is tiresome.

What's this argument of yours that demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperative at some level of being or another?

My observations concerning the realities of human conduct and interaction, and the consequences thereof are concrete, not abstract. Your claim, in the face of these things, that certain rights and principles are merely social constructs is sheer abstraction. It's not the other way around at all and never has been!

Pragmatically, what difference does it make whether these things be ontologically real in the sense that they be ultimately bottomed on a transcendent authority or not . . . in the face of the fact that, due to the inescapable exigencies and consequences related to self-preservation and self-interest, human beings throughout history have conducted themselves as if they were?

For the most part, the only persons around here making hay over an abstract distinction that makes absolutely no difference in terms of real-world actions and outcomes are you and Rabbi.

Frankly, beyond establishing a baseline for the sake of the academics of the matter, I don't give a hoot about such abstractions in the face of the practical demands of self-preservation and self-interest, on which the rudiments of natural law and natural rights are immediately predicated, but since you guys insist that this distinction is so important. . . .

Once again, what is this argument of yours which demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?

 

[gnarlylove]

Poop

I had a hunch that you had poop on your screen and all my posts were truncated by the smeared poop. It also explains why half your posts are, well, poop. JK! Everybody poops!

 

[gnarlylove]

My unabridged post above was not intended to say we are a tabula rasa as Locke called it, a blank slate. Some call it a behaviorist model or determinism.

I was merely denoting our understanding of natural rights is not in direct correspondence with our nature, however, they do represent parts of our nature. It is foolish to think humanity can achieve complete knowledge of our innate structures or nature. The best we have are external formulations (language) that arise due to internal principles of our biological system that are programmed, not conscious decisions. This is very different than saying we precisely know what all our internal principles are. I tried to make this known by referencing moral case studies that attempt to draw out our innate structure of moral behavior that is cross cultural. In doing such studies we can confirm what are universal behaviors and thus approximate their principle. From these facts we can extrapolate natural rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

My unabridged post above was not intended to say we are a tabula rasa as Locke called it, a blank slate. Some call it a behaviorist model or determinism.

I was merely denoting our understanding of natural rights is not in direct correspondence with our nature, however, they do represent parts of our nature. It is foolish to think humanity can achieve complete knowledge of our innate structures or nature. The best we have are external formulations (language) that arise due to internal principles of our biological system that are programmed, not conscious decisions. This is very different than saying we precisely know what all our internal principles are. I tried to make this known by referencing moral case studies that attempt to draw out our innate structure of moral behavior that is cross cultural. In doing such studies we can confirm what are universal behaviors and thus approximate their principle. From these facts we can extrapolate natural rights.

I don't think we need to get ALL the factors going on, but we can know enough to manage it effectively.

We can know the overall system of karma or cause and effect carried from past generations, and understand the healing and recovery process.

We don't have to know each and every instance of every factor and reason affecting people, to follow and facilitate the process of reaching peace in order to get there.

I do believe we can establish a central, unified understanding of the process of human nature in making decisions and keeping relations and institutions in harmonic balance.

I don't think we have to know everything to do this, I agree that is impossible.
But it's not like we can't figure out how human psychology works, and resolve most issues.

It's like can't cure all instances of addiction, but we can figure out how healing works and apply that to more situations earlier on to improve the rates of recovery and prevention.

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly. Yes.

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.

We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.

Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.

 

[dblack]

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.

We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.

Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.

Poop.