Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why must a deity grant my rights? If this hypothetical deity exist, why must it only be one you approve of? Is there something you know about this deity that other mere mortals are unaware of?

Once again, your concept of rights is very easy to prove. If rights are not unalienable, feel free to show my a single example of any entity, even your deity, that has ever transferred rights from one person to another. Until you do, you are simply making absurd claims without any evidence to back them up.

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.

If it really worked that way there would be no recidivism, and absolutely no violence or crime inside prisons. Everyone would simply perform like a robot, and you wouldn't even be having this debate because you could point to all the unthinking robots who have had their rights revoked.

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

Yet you claim the mere assertion that we do not have them is absolute proof we don't, and then refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts your POV.

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.

In other words, you are declaring that rights do not exist, yet providing a mechanism that proves they are not mere constructs of human minds, but that they are actually inherent in us as living beings.

If this was a class in logic you would have just failed.

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.

Because it is absolutely impossible for a single person to survive on an island even if there is food available, right?

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.

Ignoring the unmistakable truth that you quoted one person, yet insist on talking to a different person, you make absolutely no sense.

First you claim that we have no rights, but that they come from our nature. Then you claim that no one can survive unless there are other people to feed him which ignores the fact that people have survived despite not being around other people. Now you are claiming that the mere fact that you assert that rights come from other people is proof that they come from other people.

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?

Because we have the right to demand that other people bow down before us and serve our personal wants and imagined needs, right?

Remember when I pointed out that you fail to address the logical fallacies inherent in your own arguments? Does me pointing out the inherent contradictions in your position help you see why you are wrong, or are you still going to insist that, because humans exist, you have right to make them slaves?

 

[G.T.]

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?

An answer built in truth always has a better foundation to stand upon.

A right is a concept, an abstract concept. It was invented. It cannot be proven to pre-exist its invention; therefore, believing in its preexistence is not truth.

 

[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?



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.

How is it irrelevant? You are arguing that, if rights exist, people have the right to rob, steal, and kill. Can you articulate why the right to rob, steal, and kill the ultimate expression of natural rights, or are you simply saying stupid things in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your position?

 

[G.T.]

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.

How is it irrelevant? You are arguing that, if rights exist, people have the right to rob, steal, and kill. Can you articulate why the right to rob, steal, and kill the ultimate expression of natural rights, or are you simply saying stupid things in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your position?

No I wasn't arguing that.


I was arguing AGAINST that idea.

This is what happens when you play johnny come lately in a conversation.

dblack said the right to rob steal etc. existed, not GT

GT then took logical assertion and played it out, verbally, to its end.

My gosh what a waste of breath.

 

[G.T.]

Rights were incorrect to be said to be self evident.

What was self evident is that - based on observing our instincts - sentient humans felt we SHOULD have these rights.

Hence their birth.

It is illogical to say the rights themselves existed.

They are concepts, not physical dna codes.

 

[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?

An answer built in truth always has a better foundation to stand upon.

A right is a concept, an abstract concept. It was invented. It cannot be proven to pre-exist its invention; therefore, believing in its preexistence is not truth.

Fine... but this is a political board. I'm assuming you see political implications. What are they?

As for me, I think it's important to recognize that rights are not dependent on compulsive state-governments, because I think we should stay open to other alternatives. Rather obviously, we can each protect our own rights, but that's fairly burdensome, and most of us don't want to go around packing heat or live in constant fear. I also think it's important to recognize that most of our freedom exists in virtue of mutual consent and NOT out of fear of government censure. Most of the time, we respect each others rights without the involvement of any authority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, you said it. Dblack was trying to address your assertion that free will/unalienable rights means people can do bad things. He did this by agreeing that the fact that people can do bad things proves they have the right to do them. You took this to means something he clearly did not intend it to mean and ran with it. I am here to mock you.

Enjoy.

Now that I proved my post is actually relevant, are you going to address the issues, or are you simply going to declare victory because you cannot deal with the fact that you are wrong?

 

[G.T.]

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?

An answer built in truth always has a better foundation to stand upon.

A right is a concept, an abstract concept. It was invented. It cannot be proven to pre-exist its invention; therefore, believing in its preexistence is not truth.

Fine... but this is a political board. I'm assuming you see political implications. What are they?

As for me, I think it's important to recognize that rights are not dependent on compulsive state-governments, because I think we should stay open to other alternatives. Rather obviously, we can each protect our own rights, but that's fairly burdensome, and most of us don't want to go around packing heat or live in constant fear. I also think it's important to recognize that most of our freedom exists in virtue of mutual consent and NOT out of fear of government censure. Most of the time, we respect each others rights without the involvement of any authority.

I believe in basic human rights and not being able to take them away.

Their origin still being mankind doesn't matter to my notion.

The political implication is to point and giggle and say a talking point: "oh you don't believe they come from nature, you must believe a government can come whisk them away!!"

Well, no I don't believe that.

I believe in fighting for those basic rights if a govt tries taking them away.

Weird how when partisans can think past their noses, the shits not always so cut and dry.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Actually, you said it. Dblack was trying to address your assertion that free will/unalienable rights means people can do bad things. He did this by agreeing that the fact that people can do bad things proves they have the right to do them. You took this to means something he clearly did not intend it to mean and ran with it. I am here to mock you.

Enjoy.

Now that I proved my post is actually relevant, are you going to address the issues, or are you simply going to declare victory because you cannot deal with the fact that you are wrong?

No, bro.

just no.

Just leave that one to btwn the two who were talking about it, you for certain misunderstood what was going on.

How could I be saying we have an inborn right to rob steal and kill if I don't believe our rights are inborn? just be quiet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You should look up negative income tax and research the libertarian arguments for it. The fact that I oppose a right to a minimum standard of living does not mean I would object to a sensible approach to government actually delivering on the concept.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

No. Your stuff is crap. You're all over the place, because you've never thought any of this stuff through. Innate rights are inalienable and not inviolable at the same time, you say. LOL! You don't know the difference between mere freedoms and rights. You don't grasp the practical distinctions between democracy and republicanism. All of you whom rattle on about rights being cultural constructs or some such are the only ones dabbling in abstract distinctions that make no friggin' difference. And the most risible thing of all, you keep prattling on about what you think Jefferson is talking about as if what you think about that is not an academically and empirically demonstrable facet of history. Take you subject prattle about an objectively ascertainable matter to nearest swamp and dump it.

You don't have the first clue about that which you write, and like Rabbi your mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door, given your refusal to correct yourself or to revise your position in the face of an obvious contradiction, just for starters.

I put down the historical background and outlined the structure of natural law on which this nation was founded. And in addition to that I have thought things through. Before and after my reading and analysis of that history. Quantum knows this stuff too from either his historical readings on the matter or from the sheer genius of a quality mind that has thought the issues through. That's abundantly clear from his astute observations and questions. Ditto Take. You don't see any of this for what it is because you don't know the history of natural law and have never thought these things through behind your belly button.

There is layer upon layer of complexity concerning natural law, and you have barely scratched the surface if you think free will is the end of all things.

That's why Take is laughing at you.

Jefferson? LOL! Beyond the essential prose and the arrangement thereof, the sociopolitical philosophy in the Declaration of Independence is not Jefferson, but Locke and Sidney standing on the shoulders of Aristotle, Paul, Christ, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and others.

And by the way, the first order of the innate freedoms that are subject to limitations is free will, which is not an innately inalienable right, obviously, given the dynamics of light and transient transgressions and existential transgressions.

No doubt you thought that the terminology light and transient transgressions is Jefferson too, utterly unaware of the fact that light and transient transgressions versus existential transgressions of inalienable rights is a standard, historical construct in Anglo-American natural law predating Jefferson by centuries.

 

[G.T.]

whatever you were just babbling about, and whoever's post you were responding to, MD, it had nothing to do with proving the origin of rights

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You claimed that Jefferson meant that government cannot infringe on unalienable rights, yet he listed numerous was that government did so and argued that the sum total of those infringements was cause for rebellion. Did you notice he never argued that the mere fact that government infringed on them is not a cause for rebellion, that it is only justifiable when it reaches a pint of despotism?

So, tell me, how did you nail it just fine?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I haven't seen anyone ostracizing anyone in this thread, perhaps you should go stick your fake arguments in another thread.

 

[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.

Free will =/= rights.

Animal instinct =/= rights.

The word rights has a meaning.

I never said it did, I said free will is proof that rights exist in nature. Your response is to insit that they don't and then argue in circles to prove that you are not addressing the issues.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

You claimed that Jefferson meant that government cannot infringe on unalienable rights, yet he listed numerous was that government did so and argued that the sum total of those infringements was cause for rebellion. Did you notice he never argued that the mere fact that government infringed on them is not a cause for rebellion, that it is only justifiable when it reaches a pint of despotism?

So, tell me, how did you nail it just fine?

whatever you think you think you thought I said-

I never said that Jefferson said that no government ever infringed upon those rights so....

neat point dude.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I never said it did, I said free will is proof that rights exist in nature. Your response is to insit that they don't and then argue in circles to prove that you are not addressing the issues.

I don't need to prove a negative.

You need to explain how free will ipso facto is proof that rights exist in nature.

My contention is that there is no proof.

You also certainly haven't posted any. You merely keep pointing to empathy and instincts. Those don't hold a logical proof of rights.

Maybe someone can dumb it down for you if that's confusing.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

whatever you were just babbling about, and whoever's post you were responding to, MD, it had nothing to do with proving the origin of rights

I was talking to you, indirectly, as I addressed dblack, directly, who apparently agrees with your sentiments, the stuff of sheer ignorance, regarding the quality of the posts of those with whom you disagree, and all the dblack babbles nonsense about what Jefferson meant.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

It sucks? Why? Because we don't agree with you?

Innate rights most certainly are not the stuff of social constructs or the civil rights afforded by government!

That's your claim. Now instead of bitching and degrading others, how about you back that claim with an argument about how rights are NOT absolute and universal?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

heh, what an irrelevant question.

How is it irrelevant? You are arguing that, if rights exist, people have the right to rob, steal, and kill. Can you articulate why the right to rob, steal, and kill the ultimate expression of natural rights, or are you simply saying stupid things in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you cannot defend your position?

No I wasn't arguing that.


I was arguing AGAINST that idea.

This is what happens when you play johnny come lately in a conversation.

dblack said the right to rob steal etc. existed, not GT

GT then took logical assertion and played it out, verbally, to its end.

My gosh what a waste of breath.

I am pretty sure he said the ability to do so exists, but I am willing to concede the point if you want to prove he brought it up first.

 

[G.T.]

I'll do this one more time.

That we want to live - does not equal proof of a right to live. want(instinct), right ----two separate entities.

That we have free will - does not equal proof of a preexisting right to freedom. free will(own desires), right -----two separate entities.

Freedom itself does not equal a RIGHT to freedom. freedom(an existence of being), right - - - - -two separate entities.

The innate desire FOR freedom, does not equal a RIGHT to freedom. (see above)



None of our wants and desires and instincts make an ipso facto logical proof, magically, of a right existing for those desires. We carved that out ourselves, to better ourselves because it was logical.