Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[G.T.]

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.

He said free will is the SAME THING as inalienable rights.

I said no it's not, because we have the free will to kill, etc. but do not have the inalienable right.

That's how that side conversation started.


You jumped in and accused me of thinking that humans have an inalienable right to steal and kill.

your comments were irrelevant to what was taking place, hence my comment: irrelevant.

I didn't think it would take this long to explain, oh well though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You said, and I quote, "(W)hereas jeffersons (sic) use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them." Cannot does not mean they can, but shouldn't, it means they cannot.

 

[G.T.]

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.

You said, and I quote, "(W)hereas jeffersons (sic) use of the term inalienable right was to say that the government cannot infringe upon them." Cannot does not mean they can, but shouldn't, it means they cannot.

kay man

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive. You can conclusively prove that they are an abstract concept, or you can prove that they don't come from nature, which is proving the negative.

Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)

Simply declaring you are right, and then saying you don't have to prove it, only works if we are in third grade.

 

[G.T.]

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.

?You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive, or you can prove that they don't, which is proving the negative.

Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)

The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task.

I submit that there is no proof.


You have not provided any.

Noone has.


There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing.

I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.

and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc.

things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.


I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Prove it.

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

That might work for dblack, but it completely fails to address my argument. Free will is the ability to think, we have a right to think, and to make choices, completely independent of genetic programming, environment, or even our own desires/wants. This is the fundamental evidence that we are free, and that that freedom does not come from anything outside us.

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

Prove it by actually taking away my free will. Until you can do that, or show me that my ability to make my own choices no matter what else is happening around me, comes from someone outside me. Until you can do that all you are doing is making an assertion without any evidence to back it up.

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

Yo say that like it proves something.

It doesn't.

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.

I never claimed they did. I said the fact that they exist is evidence of our natural rights. You claim we don't have those rights, and declare everyone who disagrees with you wrong on the basis that you are right.

Funny thing, I am still the one presenting actual evidence for my position, all you are doing is declaring that the evidence is not enough to sway your close minded opinion, and then declare that the fact that you won't change your mind is ipso facto proof that you are right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

?You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive, or you can prove that they don't, which is proving the negative.

Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)

The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task.

I submit that there is no proof.


You have not provided any.

Noone has.


There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing.

I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.

and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc.

things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.


I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that

Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.

You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.

 

[G.T.]

That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen.


I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing.

And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing.

Zero, none, zilch, nadda.

 

[G.T.]

?You are making the claim you need to prove it. You have a couple of ways to prove your claim you can do so by demonstrating that rights come from something other than nature, which actually happens to be a positive, or you can prove that they don't, which is proving the negative.

Please tell me you can't prove a negative. (PDF)

The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task.

I submit that there is no proof.


You have not provided any.

Noone has.


There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing.

I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.

and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc.

things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.


I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that

Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.

You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.

Free will existing means that natural rights exist?

go ahead and explain how that works..........................im all ears

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen.


I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing.

And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing.

Zero, none, zilch, nadda.

This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.

 

[G.T.]

That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen.


I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing.

And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing.

Zero, none, zilch, nadda.

This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.

No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights

Why not?

Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The claim that they come from nature is something I am taking to task.

I submit that there is no proof.


You have not provided any.

Noone has.


There is no onus on me, but to tear down by way of logic each and every piece of proof you all thought you were providing.

I am not the one asserting that rights come from nature. I'm the one questioning the evidence of that.

and if they don't come from nature, which is my contention, then they necessarily come from man because we have written them into existence in governments, literature, etc.

things of those sorts. and im sure you'd agree there is proof of THAT, because you've posted said literature.


I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that they've come from nature, well------technically men inventing them is coming from nature (knee slap), but I digress on that

Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.

You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.

Free will existing means that natural rights exist?

go ahead and explain how that works..........................im all ears

Eppur si muove.

I know, you don't get it, and yet it moves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not how logic works, above ladies and gentlemen.


I don't need to prove that two words don't mean the same exact thing.

And no, you've given ZERO proof for natural rights existing.

Zero, none, zilch, nadda.

This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.

No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights

Why not?

Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.

Prove it.

 

[G.T.]

This is the guy that claims that, because something is negative, that means he doesn't have to prove it.

No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights

Why not?

Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.

Prove it.

No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, and I provided evidence that far transcends anything Locke provided when he first explained the concept. I showed that free will exists, and showed that nothing you can do will take it away.

You then declared that all evidence contrary to your position is irrelevant, and declared yourself the victor.

Free will existing means that natural rights exist?

go ahead and explain how that works..........................im all ears

Eppur si muove.

I know, you don't get it, and yet it moves.

Still no proof that rights are natural. I'm good with that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, This is the guy that claims that having free will does not equal having natural rights

Why not?

Because there's not logical proof that it does. It is insufficient logic.

Prove it.

No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.

• I can think.
• You cannot stop me from thinking.
• Therefore I have the right to think.

• I have the right to think.
• The right to think gives me the ability to speak.
• I have the right to speak.

• The right to think is inherent n me.
• The right to speak is inherent in me.
• Rights that are inherent in me are natural.

Look at that, a simple, logical, proof that natural rights exist.


Now let us look at G.T.'s logic.

• Natural rights do not exist.
• Nothing anyone says will change my mind.
• Natural rights do not exist.

Like I said, prove it.

 

[G.T.]

Prove it.

No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.

• I can think.
• You cannot stop me from thinking.
• Therefore I have the right to think.

The ability to do something does not equal the right to do something. Ability and right are not synonyms. That's not how logic works. "I can murder my mom. You cannot stop me from murdering my mom. Therefore I have the right to murder my mom" is just one glaring example of why this doesn't work.

• I have the right to think.
• The right to think gives me the ability to speak.
• I have the right to speak.

Same thing. Ability = right is all you're positing. that's a leap of logic. Unless of course the WORD right has a new definition as created by q.w.b. --> Right = anything you have the ability to do.

Sorry, that's not what right means.

• The right to think is inherent n me.
• The right to speak is inherent in me.
• Rights that are inherent in me are natural.

Look at that, a simple, logical, proof that natural rights exist.


Now let us look at G.T.'s logic.

• Natural rights do not exist.
• Nothing anyone says will change my mind.
• Natural rights do not exist.

Like I said, prove it.

Sorry bro, but it is not logical to jump to conclusions.

You jumped to conclusions without the logical backing.

How does the ability to do something equate to the right to do it?>

And if that's so - then you're literally positing that we have the right to do anything we are able to do. Which is silly.



And I'll correct you on how GT's logic works, let the man show you how it's done:

GT says that:

Natural rights are not proven
He is seeking logical proof
none has been provided

 

[G.T.]

I cant even believe you think that's how logic works, too.

I thought you were smarter than that to be honest.

I have the ability to think therefore I have the right to think? That's logic? lol wowza

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I don't know if that's true. But I didn't, did I? Because they're not! They're concrete, and I don't have to appeal to God. They're embedded in nature. That's their immediate ORIGIN. Since you complain about links intended to save time, here it is again.
______________________________________

But they are quantifiable, and they have been specifically identified in the historical literature of natural law, repeatedly.

We know what they are. You know what they are.

They are self-evident because any given instance of their violation provokes the bonds of peace and justice, and at one level or another, a state of war between the respective parties necessarily ensues. Ultimately, they are the stuff of self-preservation.

Every sane person of normal intelligence on this board knows when their fundamental rights are being threatened or violated as the injustice of it and the consequences of it are very tangible, rationally apprehended and viscerally felt in the most immediate sense there is, for one is indisputably compelled to fight, flee or submit against what one would normally will for oneself.

All the claims to the contrary are baby talk, indeed, theoretical rubbish, sophomoric philosophizing, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be."

The following are the fundamental, innate rights of man. They have been identified and established for centuries, indeed, long before the iteration of them in terms of natural law proper during the Enlightenment. It is readily self-evident that the innate rights of man would be of such a nature that the transgression of them would pose an immediate existential threat to one's physical survival or mental well-being.

They are not the civil/political rights afforded by government!

1. The right to be secure in one's life, fundamental liberties (3, 4, 5) and property.

2. The right to use deadly force to defend one's life, fundamental liberties and property.

3. Freedom of religion/ideology.

4. Freedom of expression.

5. Freedom of movement.
_____________________________________

It's your contention that rights are mere social constructs or perhaps the civil/political rights afforded by government that's the stuff of theory, abstraction, mamby-pamby philosophizing.

Once again, if what you say is true regarding the nature of rights, then prove it by showing how your underlying relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition about the reality of things is true.

But you just want to argue against straw men, right?





BTW, in case some of you are imagining a contradiction in my posts, the essential aspects of liberty (3, 4, 5), as distinguished from those of life and property, are commonly or idiomatically referred to in the historical literature of natural law as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement. They are not freedoms proper, but the inalienable rights of human liberty. In other words, the are the natural, inalienable rights of exercising human liberty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No need, same way I don't need to prove God doesn't exist to proclaim that he hasn't been logically proven.

• I can think.
• You cannot stop me from thinking.
• Therefore I have the right to think.

The ability to do something does not equal the right to do something. Ability and right are not synonyms. That's not how logic works. "I can murder my mom. You cannot stop me from murdering my mom. Therefore I have the right to murder my mom" is just one glaring example of why this doesn't work.

• I have the right to think.
• The right to think gives me the ability to speak.
• I have the right to speak.

Same thing. Ability = right is all you're positing. that's a leap of logic. Unless of course the WORD right has a new definition as created by q.w.b. --> Right = anything you have the ability to do.

Sorry, that's not what right means.

You asked for a logical proof of my position. I delivered one. If you think my premises are wrong, feel free to provide something other than your assertion that they are wrong to back up your claim.

Wait, that would actually require you to debate the issues, which is work, whereas you prefer to declare yourself the winner by acclamation, which isn't.

• The right to think is inherent n me.
• The right to speak is inherent in me.
• Rights that are inherent in me are natural.

Look at that, a simple, logical, proof that natural rights exist.


Now let us look at G.T.'s logic.

• Natural rights do not exist.
• Nothing anyone says will change my mind.
• Natural rights do not exist.

Like I said, prove it.

Sorry bro, but it is not logical to jump to conclusions.

Except that it is. In fact logic is defined by the ability to reach a conclusion that is supported by two, or more, premises that may, or may not, be true.

But, please, keep pretending you understand logic.

You jumped to conclusions without the logical backing.

What, exactly, is logical backing? I only ask because, outside of your head, I never heard of it.

How does the ability to do something equate to the right to do it?>

How does it not?

The neat thing about logical premises is that the rules of logic require you to assume they are true. Funny how a guy that claims that I don't have a logical backing, whatever that is, for my conclusions doesn't understand that simple rule.

By the way, the above is one reason why I prefer to make arguments based on things other than logic.

And if that's so - then you're literally positing that we have the right to do anything we are able to do. Which is silly.

No, that is what you are posting. I never once said anything even remotely like that.

I will, however, admit that your conclusion is completely logical, which is another reason I rarely use logic in arguments.

Funny how the guy that insisted on seeing logic suddenly discovers that he doesn't actually like logic, isn't it?

And I'll correct you on how GT's logic works, let the man show you how it's done:

GT says that:

Natural rights are not proven
He is seeking logical proof
none has been provided

I gave you logical proof, and your brain failed to process it because it doesn't understand the terms you are using.