Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[G.T.]

Rights cannot be proven to exist in nature.

Only basic instincts.

Rights are a construct developed by intelligent humans as a driver to better coexist.

 

[Katzndogz]

It seems like liberals are going to claim that people have no rights other than those bestowed by the government to overturn the Bill of Rights.

Yes they are.

 

[G.T.]

It seems like liberals are going to claim that people have no rights other than those bestowed by the government to overturn the Bill of Rights.

Yes they are.

It doesn't seem like you read a conversation and follow it very well.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

Like M.D., in order to claim inalienable rights exist one must either assert an absolute deity who grants these "inalienable" rights or they are not inalienable. Inalienable means they are universal rights that under no circumstances be revoked. However, we act and the government certainly carries out action that negates inalienable rights in supposedly justified scenarios. So either humans are breaking god-given rights through our free will or inalienable rights are not de facto not inalienable--incapable of being infringed. These rights are mere suggestions, not to be taken as universal. They are to be pndered whether they apply or not in a given scenario. Inalienable rights would mean there is no need to think whether they apply, because they always do.

Precisely because certain people misbehave, we revoke their inalienable rights and we count this as justified. Thus, inalienable rights are not universal and therefore are not inalienable.

How do you arrive at inalienable rights, dblack? Simply saying "we have inalienable rights" carries no justification. Assertions are not facts, they are assertions.

In my view, inalienable rights are derived from biological principles that propagate what we call morals. Take toddlers for instance, that they pick up language and learn it without being taught its grammar and structure, this shows biology has innate principles that we have a certain immediate access to though we do not understand the innate biology behind it. In the same manner, we can construct these rights we speak of but we must keep in mind that we don't have clear access into what these principles are, only that we have access to our interpretation of them which can be very different. I'm not speaking of English, I'm speaking of the general principles of language. So I'm not speaking about Western version of codified inalienable rights, I'm speaking of universal, inalienable rights that are innate to human beings.

Thus I think it makes sense to say food is an inalienable right because without food, the biological organism ceases. However, this is not intended to mean that an isolated human on an island is provided food by god or nature, that human must seek it out and there's a chance nothing is edible on the island. So what I'm saying is these principles cannot exist without other humans. They are "social inalienable rights" that only exist in relation to other human beings. It makes no sense to say I have the inalienable right to free speech when no one else exists. It only makes sense in a community.

So you can continue to pick and choose, dblack, that humans do have the right to free speech but do not have the right to food. This would only make sense in a pre-civilization era or when humans did not exist in bands. And your overtly insane idea of privatization reverts us back into this ugly period of every animal for self. Civilization IS because it is the recognition that working together is better than sticking to our private life. And the way to co-exist in communities is having a delineated concept of inalienable rights. However, that delineated concept is not to be taken as 100% absolute and unchangeable--humans make mistakes.

We need to understand that the right to life and health care, given our modern capability, must be considered an inalienable right IFF we are to continue co-existing in society. otherwise, neglecting very specific groups of people because they lack money and the ability to earn money to pay for essential life supporting needs is a categorical mistake. It leads to unrest and insurrection. Do you understand?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 .

Your "observation" is that I make stupid arguments, and you prove this by not answering the actual arguments I make. If they were really stupid you should be able to take them apart, instead, like everyone else who claims I am wrong, you sit back and declare your side the winner by acclamation.

Great job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I prefer to think of free will as the fundamental expression of natural rights, but I am not going to quibble over the details.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Amazing how you think man is fundamentally evil. Is there a theological reason behind your argument, or are you jst so confounded by the concept of free will that you think the only possible expression of it is to attack others?

By the way, I make my posts as I read through the thread, I don't sit around waiting for people to respond to my posts before I read another post. If you actually thought my replies misrepresent something you would be free to quote them and point out what I got wrong. Your real problem isn't that my posts don't address the issues, it is that you can't refute them.

 

[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.

Amazing how you think man is fundamentally evil. Is there a theological reason behind your argument, or are you jst so confounded by the concept of free will that you think the only possible expression of it is to attack others?

heh, what an irrelevant question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Only in the sense that people can actually do those things, and nothing you can do will prevent them. That does not actually make them rights though because actions are not rights.

 

[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?

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

Only in the sense that people can actually do those things, and nothing you can do will prevent them. That does not actually make them rights though because actions are not rights.

Yea, I'm not the one saying they were.

The guy I'm responding to was.

Jeebus.

 

[oldfart]

You know... I was glib with you earlier, but this really is very frustrating, because it's not even a real debate. It's just a confusion, a category error. The 'inalienable rights' that Jefferson references are an entirely different sort of thing than the concept most people are referring to here when they discuss 'rights'. Most people, Rabbi and the rest who insist rights are state creations, are thinking of rights as those freedoms we designate for protection - and that protection certainly isn't 'inalienable'. As soon as there isn't a government around to provide the protection, it goes away. But the freedom itself is simply a by product of free will.

The key thing about the inalienable rights is that no one needs to do anything for you to have them - all they need to do is leave you alone. That's what makes them different than nonsense like the 'right to health care' or other imagined rights that require others to serve you. Again, inalienable doesn't mean 'sacrosanct' or 'off-limits' - it just means 'innate', essentially something that is an extrapolation of the ability to think for yourself.

I agree that the discussion is mainly a case of semantic confusion. You bring up a point that bears further comment when you use as an example a "right to health care". Although the concepts are a lot older, Americans associate them with Wilson's Fourteen Points in international relations and FDRs Four Freedoms in domestic affairs. The third point is "Freedom from Want". This was further advanced in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In FDRs formulation, "freedom from want" had equal standing and was parallel to "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", and "freedom from fear". By calling them freedoms, FDR implied that they were aspirational goals, not enforceable rights. The UDHR was an international attempt to convert such aspirations to enforceable rights, or at least causes of action.

Now as aspirations, I see no problem in declaring a goal of providing any person the basic necessities of life. This is irrespective of what we call them. The objection seems to be to regarding them as enforceable rights, which imply a structure for enforcement. Presumably enforcement would be by governmental action. Personally I have no objection to this either; I see no sense in declaring objectives for society or government and then having no way of implementing them. I realize that this opens the door to a discussion of the redistributive effects of government action, but most government actions have distribution effects whether we discuss them or not. Usually such effects are deleterious to society as a whole and to the mechanisms of government itself if such control is hidden.

A long tradition in political philosophy holds that quite different rights are combined in a package, and that any social contract that exists has as a prerequisite that most members agree to accept the compact. The Bill of Rights was a bargain struck to ensure passage of the Constitution. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he recognized the people's rights to change the government both by constitutional and by revolutionary means. We cannot cherry-pick which rights are absolute and which are negotiable. We should not try to live under the slogan "What's mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable!"

For example, property rights are never off the table. Should the American society decide to confiscate wealth over a certain level or of a certain type, it can do so by either constitutional or revolutionary methods. There is no "right" that can stop it.

This is the essence of the Declaration of Independence, which is in essence a declaration of a revolutionary "right" to restructure the arrangements of power and government when a sufficient number of citizens decide to do so and have the ability to succeed in the ensuing test of arms. No ever said that revolutions had to be peaceful, or successful, or even to achieve their original goals. Often they are failed and enormously destructive. But as a matter of "natural law" the founding fathers believed that they had a "natural right" to rebellion, if they could persuade the world that it was justified and attracted sufficient resources to win the test of arms. This is the one "right", rooted in the use of force, political, economic, and military, which rests on no political theory at all. This is the one right which requires no agreement or permission of others. All it requires is the willingness to lose everything, including one's life and family, in the following conflict.

So where does a "right" to a bearable standard of living come from? From the consent of most of society if it can be garnered, and after that only from a revolution. Those who cannot negotiate the first are likely to be disappointed with the second.

This is a sword that cuts both ways. A society that cannot resolve its conflicts within the bounds of political processes will find those conflicts resolved outside of those political processes. Anyone who believes a certain outcome in their favor is foreordained is engaging in self deception. Those who believe that they must prevail as a matter of "right" are the most deluded of all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is not how he used it. He was writing the Declaration of Independence because the government was infringing on those rights, and he saw it as a duty of every free man to fight against that government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

That means you are totally misrepresenting what Jefferson mean by unalienable rights, which is why you don't actually comprehend the arguments.

 

[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.

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.

That is not how he used it. He was writing the Declaration of Independence because the government was infringing on those rights, and he saw it as a duty of every free man to fight against that government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

That means you are totally misrepresenting what Jefferson mean by unalienable rights, which is why you don't actually comprehend the arguments.

No, I nailed it just fine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

My personal belief in God is irrelevant to the discussion of rights because, ultimately, they exist as part of our nature, even God cannot revoke them without unmaking what we are.

 

[gnarlylove]

Ostracizing people based on a narrow and blithe understanding of inalienable rights is leading to devastating consequences. By using a cheap version of human rights, we are ballooning unmitigated suffering to the global population and kicking them while their down. How in the fuck is this considered OK or some inalienable right of private gain? Is it a human right to be without means to life and without food when food is readily available? How upside down does your thinking need to be to believe such hogwash? It's kind of a moral truism that the more privilege you have, the more responsibility you have.

Do you think its the right of the company to withhold life simply because someone cannot pay for it? Corporations are not people and don't have the right to withhold food to those in need. What you fail to understand is corporations claimed land from Malaysians (and other subsistence peoples) thereby forcing them into the urban center to work for the corporation for less than 2 meals a day. How is this a human right to rape subsistence land for profit? Is this perfectly natural according to your doctrine? It is totally inhuman and so if your beliefs lead to such circumstances you have a major mistake in how you understand life.

 

[G.T.]

Rights don't exist as a part of our nature.

Instincts exist as a part of our nature.

Rights exist as a human expression of how best to coexist. Humans made them up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rights cannot be proven to exist in nature.

Only basic instincts.

Rights are a construct developed by intelligent humans as a driver to better coexist.

If I took that position I would have to believe that nature is amoral. That would mean I would have to ignore the evidence that animals have a moral code, and are willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. I would also have to ignore the evidence the free will exists, and that you cannot stop me from making choices no matter how much force you put behind your efforts.

Also, as I have pointed out more than once, unless you can show me an example of rights being created, and transferred, by some entity other than nature, you have no case.

 

[G.T.]

Rights cannot be proven to exist in nature.

Only basic instincts.

Rights are a construct developed by intelligent humans as a driver to better coexist.

If I took that position I would have to believe that nature is amoral. That would mean I would have to ignore the evidence that animals have a moral code, and are willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. I would also have to ignore the evidence the free will exists, and that you cannot stop me from making choices no matter how much force you put behind your efforts.

Also, as I have pointed out more than once, unless you can show me an example of rights being created, and transferred, by some entity other than nature, you have no case.

Free will =/= rights.

Animal instinct =/= rights.

The word rights has a meaning.

 

[G.T.]

An instinct to stay alive or keep your family alive does not imply a privilege to do so.

It only implies instincts, brain chemistry, empathy.

An instinct to seek happiness does not imply a privilege to do so.

It only implies what you WANT, not your privilege to go and get it.

Free will does not equal freedom.

Free will means you control your own central nervous system, and said central nervous system CAN be influenced by outside forces however they cannot be inside of you controlling your literal will. (yet)

Freedom means the ability to ACT on your free will.

Instinct, free will, freedom, rights, natural rights....................all different terms.

 

[dblack]

I wonder if the key people speaking up here would be willing to cite why the think it's important to make the call one way or another? I think we're all making certain assumptions about each other's motives, but we might as well be clear, eh? What is it that we think there is to be gained, or lost, by subscribing to one view or the other?