Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

So you're saying these rights exist naturally, in nature? So is physics or biology going to eventually discover them? When you say they are innate, are they hard wired code of ethics? Or when you say innate do you mean they exist independent of subjects, that they are objective notions that transcend time and space? If you mean the latter, you are invoking a god figure.

And don't pretend you have any room to evaluate insults as a logical fallacy. Last month you had no concept of how to respectfully reply. I see that has changed but don't act like you have any credibility as a person concerned with cold hard logic when you become hostile at a moments notice.

Feel free to go back through and read the thread, you might find that I already provided scientific evidence to back up my position.

Funny thing, no one who disagrees with me provided any evidence to support their position, yet you are still insisting I need to prove something. All you have to do to prove me wrong is show a single example of anyone in history ever transferring a natural right from one person to another. It should be easy, unless you are wrong.

By the way, genius, I never said your insults are logical fallacies, I said you resort to insults rather than deal with the logical fallacies in your position, this post is the perfect example of that particular tactic. I use insults because I fucking enjoy insulting people. I also use arguments to destroy their positions. You, on the other hand, use insults because you have no arguments.

 

[GreenBean]

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.

Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .

Your argument might make more sense if you actually addressed my replies to your posts rather than throwing out an insult when I challenge another poster to actually back up his claims. On the other hand, doing it this way does relieve you of the requirement of actually thinking.

What argument lol.... I just made an observation.
I haven't been participating in this discussion, just watching you get your ass kicked.

And I did pay you a compliment, basicallly I said you can't possibly be as dumd as you sometimes sound .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .

Are you kidding me? Quantum is the quintessential bard of the succinct profundity, typically in the form of a simple statement or question, that demolishes the bunk of others. That you apparently cannot extrapolate the grander points he's making with these simple statements and questions is not his problem, but yours.

Not the sharpest tool?! He's hands down one of the sharpest tools on this or any other board.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Windbag - I've read your posts in the past, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you're certainly not as dumb as your performance on this thread would have people believe - either explain your point more eloquently or just give it up .

Your argument might make more sense if you actually addressed my replies to your posts rather than throwing out an insult when I challenge another poster to actually back up his claims. On the other hand, doing it this way does relieve you of the requirement of actually thinking.

What argument lol.... I just made an observation.
I haven't been participating in this discussion, just watching you get your ass kicked.

And I did pay you a compliment, basicallly I said you can't possibly be as dumd as you sometimes sound .

By whom? Rabbi? LOL! As I said before, Rabbi's never gotten beyond the first principles of this matter in his entire life. He can't make the extrapolations concerning Quantum's points either.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

dblacks position that inalienable rights exist has no framework. He has no noncircular justification for them. Do you reference God, dblack?

They sound good in order to protect private property and individual desire but they are purely subjective opinions (that happen to be held by an overwhelming majority so it fools you into universality). The fact that you pick and choose what rights people have demonstrates you're not using reason, rather you are rationalizing your massively hackneyed ideology that emphasizes private everything. So naturally you think rights sound good when they free one up to do nothing, having nill responsibility. That's why you think "rights to life" (e.g. right to health care) makes no sense....because they are "freedoms to something" (like the right to exist) rather than "freedoms from something." You think you can pick and choose. But without one, you cannot have the other. Life is the need for food, health care etc. Without those a person is not existing in society but is treated as an animal. Natural rights are about civility, society and yet you refuse to ideologically grant certain rights because you think life does not entail the right to life (the right to food etc.).

Sadly your massive head trauma sustained months back has left you incapable of carrying a conversation deeply rooted in reality. You prefer fantasy and ideology over reality and refuse to believe anything can contradict your highly deficient worldview. No one can work with such a hackneyed trial-version philosopher where you expire beyond your programmed set of beliefs and shut down upon fundamental demurs. Nothing personal, just describing your behavior as I've seen it.

That's a little rough, gnarlylove; but, yes, dblack's position is weak for the reasons I pointed out in the above. But he is right about the existence of natural, inalienable rights.

 

[dblack]

Once again, the only real argument here is over definitions, which makes for pretty dull debate. My premise is that the concept of 'inalienable rights' is identical to free will. Hopefully, everyone would agree that government doesn't grant us free will, that we have it as an innate property of the mind. If your premise is that inalienable rights are something more, than that doesn't hold.

 

[G.T.]

Once again, the only real argument here is over definitions, which makes for pretty dull debate. My premise is that the concept of 'inalienable rights' is identical to free will. Hopefully, everyone would agree that government doesn't grant us free will, that we have it as an innate property of the mind. If your premise is that inalienable rights are something more, than that doesn't hold.

If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?



This thread just sucks at this point.

You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question.

It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This concept truly is beyond you, bro. If inalienable rights are egalitarian, and they involve the right to life and to property, how is it that any individual has the right to infringe upon the inalienable rights of someone else? They don't. That;s the entire point essentially. That EACH individual has such rights. No one has any right to infringe upon the rights of another in stealing and/or killing.

 

[G.T.]

This concept truly is beyond you, bro. If inalienable rights are egalitarian, and they involve the right to life and to property, how is it that any individual has the right to infringe upon the inalienable rights of someone else? They don't. That;s the entire point essentially. That EACH individual has such rights. No one has any right to infringe upon the rights of another in stealing and/or killing.

It's not beyond me,

you admitted they were abstract and not provable.

you were done, at that point.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Now you're just misrepresenting it. They do not need to be proven, is what I said. And you can not answer the question posed because you know damned well you've spent two days in this thread digging a real deep hole and you refuse to relent.

 

[dblack]

If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?

It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.

This thread just sucks at this point.

You have windbag who comes in here and responds to like 15 posts at a clip and his posts are full of misreads (incorrect contexts' of the conversations he's responding to, etc), you have m.d. who just links back to paragraphs and paragraphs of other crap, takeastep who just stands and giggles, and it's all just not worth going BACK to and re re re hashing the same shit because another person comes through and misrepresents their opposing argument, without question.

It's fun and all, but I'm more interested in only the real-time discussion.

Agreed.

I realize most of you are coming at this from a different angle, but I really do think what I'm conveying is all that Jefferson really meant. Basically, he was just saying that we start out with basic freedom - free will - and we create governments to protect that freedom, to make it possible for us to live together and avoid stepping all over each other.

 

[G.T.]

Now you're just misrepresenting it. They do not need to be proven, is what I said. And you can not answer the question posed because you know damned well you've spent two days in this thread digging a real deep hole and you refuse to relent.

The question posed?

You're irrelevant.

You continue to post logical fallacy after logical fallacy and don't even know when you're doing it, whats the point of continuing?

And then when your debate is lost, over and over, you claim you're leaving.

You're still here.

You're not "over it."

you can't be "over it," because you still don't understand that you're wrong.




One more time, this has not been refuted:

Natural Rights are not provable to exist, only rights are provable to exist - - - - - they exist because we invented them.

 

[G.T.]

If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?

It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.

.

But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?

And if not, then how come if free will and inalienable rights are identical as you posited, then WHY not?

 

[dblack]

If an inalienable right is identical to free will, then you have an inalienable right to rob steal and kill if that's what your free will tells you to go ahead and do. You don't see how that *doesn't* work?

It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.

.

But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?

Yes.

I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't protected freedoms, but existential freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.

 

[G.T.]

It works fine. The inalienable rights to rob, steak and kill aren't freedoms that we'd protect with government because they obviously trample the rights of others. Indeed, the whole point of government is to mitigate our freedoms when the come into conflict.

.

But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?

Yes.

I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't protected freedoms, but existential freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.

I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.

Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.

I concur that your statement would be correct (still not provable, however), that if rights were the same thing as free will - - - - - - your statement is congruent and we'd be born with them. (not agreeing with your statement, but taking it to its ends) -->

BUT, once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.

The government clearly infringes upon robbing, stealing and killing.

 

[dblack]

But do they exist, the inalienable rights to rob steal and kill?

Yes.

I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't protected freedoms, but existential freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.

I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.

Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.
...

once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.

Heh.. I even disagree with your disagreement. I'd say, if anything, my interpretation of the second word, 'rights', would be the weak link.

'Inalienable' is pretty clear. It most definitely does NOT mean that it can't be infringed. It means it can't be permanently removed - it's integral and permanently attached. No matter what government, or anyone else, does to temporarily inhibit your free will, you still have it. And as soon as they go away, or otherwise stop infringing, your freedom is restored.

 

[G.T.]

Yes.

I think you're reading the word 'right' in only one context, namely that of a 'protected freedom', and unfortunately its been used in many different ways. I'm suggesting that what Jefferson was referring to as inalienable rights, wasn't protected freedoms, but existential freedoms. If my interpretation of Jefferson's statement is correct, he'd done all of us a favor by using a different word there. We could have avoided a lot of unfortunate equivocation.

I think you then have a problem, a problem where you read Jefferson wrong.

Because the word you're messing around with too much - is inalienable.
...

once you say that "inalienable" rights are the same things as free will, your statement doesn't work. You're rendering the term "inalienable" as a meaningless one, whereas jeffersons use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them.

Heh.. I even disagree with your disagreement. I'd say, if anything, my interpretation of the second word, 'rights', would be the weak link.

'Inalienable' is pretty clear. It most definitely does NOT mean that it can't be infringed. It means it can't be permanently removed - it's integral and permanently attached. No matter what government, or anyone else, does to temporarily inhibit your free will, you still have it. And as soon as they go away, or otherwise stop infringing, your freedom is restored.

lol that's a ton of liberty you're taking with the terms though man

they actually wrote about these things and what they meant exactly, and lol robbing and stealing etc were not in their realm of inalienable rights

what you're doing is making the entire essence of inalienable rights meaningless - saying that all the walls of text on inalienable rights the founders/locke etc. wrote could have been summarized with one easy phrase: youre born so you have the right to everything

 

[dblack]

what you're doing is making the entire essence of inalienable rights meaningless - saying that all the walls of text on inalienable rights the founders/locke etc. wrote could have been summarized with one easy phrase: youre born so you have the right to everything

Well, that's equivocating on the word 'right', which is very easy to do here. To say you 'have a right' to something is referring to protected rights, not existential rights.

Anyway, I don't think I'm rendering 'inalienable rights' meaningless, but I am denying the meaning that's usually attached to the phrase. Mainly, because when I read it that way I run into the same problems you, and others here, are pointing out - it doesn't make any sense. If I do read it that way, I have to conclude that Jefferson was an idiot. I'm going on a hunch that he wasn't, and assuming he meant his writing to make sense.

 

[G.T.]

what you're doing is making the entire essence of inalienable rights meaningless - saying that all the walls of text on inalienable rights the founders/locke etc. wrote could have been summarized with one easy phrase: youre born so you have the right to everything

Well, that's equivocating on the word 'right', which is very easy to do here. To say you 'have a right' to something is referring to protected rights, not existential rights.

Anyway, I don't think I'm rendering 'inalienable rights' meaningless, but I am denying the meaning that's usually attached to the phrase. Mainly, because when I read it that way I run into the same problems you, and others here, are pointing out - it doesn't make any sense. If I do read it that way, I have to conclude that Jefferson was an idiot. I'm going on a hunch that he wasn't, and assuming he meant his writing to make sense.

Well, Jefferson wasn't an idiot but he was wrong about some things, that's for damn sure.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

dblacks position that inalienable rights exist has no framework. He has no noncircular justification for them. Do you reference God, dblack?

The framework is that they come from nature. Unless you are tryng to insist that God is nature there is no real need to bring Him into the discussion.

Correct. G.T. thought I was. Wrong. As I've shown, it's immediately self-evident that they obtain in nature as a matter of the pragmatic, everyday exigencies and consequences of human life and conduct; that is to say, they exist in nature or exist as natural, immediate extensions of the name. They are not granted by or derived from government.

However, make no mistake about it, they are ultimately endowed by God, as He is the Creator of nature. The reason that in the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding this idea is advanced is because it emphasis the fact that government is not the Source and Guarantor of these rights, to emphasize the fact that they are inalienable, inviolable, sacrosanct, inviolable, absolute beyond the imperatives of nature as well.

Hence, the so-called divine right of kings is hokum, and the right of revolt against tyranny is absolute.