Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Sallow]

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 .

So, you plan to defeat him with a purely genetic argument?

Did you mean "generic" ?

Please bear in mind this is the clean debate zone and personal attacks are frowned upon.

 

[Sallow]

"Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.

oh, the delicious irony!

Except it's not ironic.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If you can not see how it's ironic in conjunction with your other posts about natural rights, I do not think it can even be explained to you. It's really funny though! Thanks!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.

So, you're going to go the GT route of everything is abstract? That's fine. Revert to page 1, start reading then come back.

What is abstract is abstract. I don't have to read the entire thread to know I'm right.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

lmao. Sure thing!

 

[G.T.]

I wouldnt recommend reading the thread back. Its a few users carrying a conversation cordially mixed with take a step and qwb repeating the "im teh smawter den everyone of evaaaa u just dont get it" meme.

Snooze fest.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

 

[G.T.]

Yea bro.

Cuz saying the concept of rights is abstract is the ssme as saying EVERYTHING is abstract.

You got it! Thats no leap.

 

[percysunshine]

Has anyone else noticed that there are exactly 666 replies to this thread?

Oops...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yea bro.

Cuz saying the concept of rights is abstract is the ssme as saying EVERYTHING is abstract.

You got it! Thats no leap.

Even perception is abstract. So if we can not find any core tenet in ontology within the parameters of man's reason, which is the essence of both natural law and natural rights, then yes. It is. And the ability to form a cogent, mutual understanding of what these things refer to, why we, as humans, have played this philosophical "game" for hundreds of years, and what we've concluded, is lost.


Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.

 

[Listening]

So, you plan to defeat him with a purely genetic argument?

Did you mean "generic" ?

Please bear in mind this is the clean debate zone and personal attacks are frowned upon.

So are non-contributary posts.

 

[Listening]

They exist, but the government is there to protect them through the rule of law. However, the government can just as easily take them away, so that is why the government must be accountable to an active, engaged citizenry.

Whether or not "they exist" is not really an issue. You can't put a meter on them and you can't titrate them.

Their existence has been proven at one level (but then...even only if people subscribe to the same definitions.

What really validates them is people's dedication to them. Which has somewhat been shown by this thread. They really do serve as a basis for people's (including mine) reality.

If you hold to the notion, then you really have a framework from which to approach the issues of government and society. You are almost obligated to stay within certain boundaires to maintain that framework. Failure to do so creates some pretty difficult internal conflict.

People can say they don't exist (and they do), but that won't change how we behave when it comes to ideology.

Those who think they can proceed by avoiding such an ideology have given us the mess we have today.

 

[Listening]

Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.

No one has to prove they exist.

Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.

 

[Sallow]

Yea bro.

Cuz saying the concept of rights is abstract is the ssme as saying EVERYTHING is abstract.

You got it! Thats no leap.

Even perception is abstract. So if we can not find any core tenet in ontology within the parameters of man's reason, which is the essence of both natural law and natural rights, then yes. It is. And the ability to form a cogent, mutual understanding of what these things refer to, why we, as humans, have played this philosophical "game" for hundreds of years, and what we've concluded, is lost.


Nothing is real. Everything is permitted.

That's a huge logical leap.

Which places this "argument" squarely all over the place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

 

[Sallow]

Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.

No one has to prove they exist.

Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.

Which proves nothing.

The same can be said for the "natural" right to rule.

People fight for that too.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

Cogito ergo sum?

 

[percysunshine]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

Then name a natural right that exists, on its own, as something other than an idea or an opinion.

A lone wolf in the Alaskan tundra has a natural right to kill and eat a rabbit.

I doubt the wolf would have an idea, or an opinion, on Italian fashion.

Instinct!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.

No one has to prove they exist.

Just like the concept of liberty (which wars have been fought over), they are seen as powerful and in force when people behave in such a way as to protect and maintain them.

Then I'm exactly right. They only exist as ideas or opinions. There is nothing 'natural' about them. They are not God given.

They are merely opinions that form a part of the basis for how certain forms of government should function.