Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

Without reason nothing ceases to exist except for reason. And reason can make conclusions based on physical facts. It cannot in regard to rights. They are an abstract manifestation of mans reason. Thek being abstract does not indeed mean everything is abstract and nothing is real. Thats a cop out to having to prove rights exist, because it cannot be done.

I already proved to you that you don't understand logic, calling it reason isn't going to suddenly make you a savant. Reason tells me that the sun revolves around the Earth, logic proves that reason is right, then you come along and declare yourself the winner of the debate because reason and logic prove you right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Cogito ergo sum?

So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,

and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.

Do you think?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not a right.

It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.

Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?

I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?

Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?

See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?

You're asking several different questions here.

But I will try to unpack it.

There is no "natural right" to life. And as you were in competition to be born (Your sperm being the fastest, reaching the egg first), you are in constant competition to keep living.

That's why humans banded together. To "mitigate" the competition, first between them an animals, then between them and themselves. And as these "bands" evolved into Society, humans ascribed themselves "rights" to "civilize" society.

And it works.

However to make the leap and say that rights are "natural" and innate? Is misrepresenting what a "right" is and what it took to get us to the point where we are even talking about "rights".

The funny thing is that, if you are correct that life is not a natural right, you would be able to prove it by pointing to the government agency that grants people life. Yet you still insist that I have to prove I am right when I insist that no one granted me the right to life, that it exists simply because I exist.

Why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We should agree, first..what are "rights"?



The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.

And that "government" is wholly not necessary.

I dispute that contention.

Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute. If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?

That you need government to breath ?

Breathing is not a right.

It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.

Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.

If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.

Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.

It's not a hard concept, really.

Does that mean you admit that rights exist without government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Breathing is not a right.

It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.

Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.

If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.

Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.

It's not a hard concept, really.

I'll repeat my question...

Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute. If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?

I think I have.

Rights exist within a Society.

And governments are part and parcel with that.

Society is not government. The question is, do rights exist without government. The answer is yes.

 

[bluesman]

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

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.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.

"We hold these truths to be self evident...". That means the people who put their asses on the line and signed the Declaration of Independence were making that statement. They made it clear that they specifically hold the truths to be self evident.



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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...


The context of the statement cannot be ignored. The violation of basic rights is the reason or in this case the justification for the Declaration of Independence. Of course the founders of the Chinese government didn't make the same kind of statements. That is why we use China as an example when we think of a place without basic freedoms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is a dishonest position to say that IF a person does not believe that rights are natural, they then think that Governments are okay to take them away.

You can believe in basic rights as created by man - not nature - and also believe that governments have no place taking them away.

And those basic rights are also a matter of opinion. Fight for what you believe in. I believe men should have the right to life and persuit of happiness. Not because he is born with them. But because it is the best way forward for humans to coexist.

What possible justification is there for telling the government they cannot take something that they are the source of?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, dude. I'm fully aware that the proper definition of right completely and utterly escapes you. We have online dictionaries should you choose to consult one.

So are you asserting that a right is the ability to do something or arent you.....

Cuz um. Its not.

The ability to do something is an expression of rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cogito ergo sum?

So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,

and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.

So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?

Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?

It's not a 'right' it's a state of being.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?

Ability=\= right.
existence =\= right.
instinct =\= right.
desire =\= right.

You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.

What is or isn't a right is subjective. To state that something is a right is merely one side of an argument; it is not the statement of some inarguable fact.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, it was an argument for God given equal rights for all men. It was made against the counter-argument that the King possessed his own God given right, that of absolute power. Because the King and his supporters claimed that God was on their side,

Jefferson and the colonists logically argued that, no, God was their side.

The only inarguable fact that followed was that the Americans won the war.

 

[dblack]

Ability=\= right.
existence =\= right.
instinct =\= right.
desire =\= right.

You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.

What is or isn't a right is subjective.

How are you defining "right"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you can't name a single natural right that actually exists on its own as anything other than an idea or opinion,

and yet you insist on saying I'm wrong to assert that so-called natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions.

So you do not understand the phrase and what it means?

Let me help you out. The right to life is a natural right once you're in existence. Does that help? You want me to help you some more?

It's not a 'right' it's a state of being.

You are correct, rights are a state of being.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.

What is or isn't a right is subjective.

How are you defining "right"?

As a legally protected right. What you think is a right, or what you think should be a right, if not protected by law, is not a right.

For example, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. Before the amendment, it was not a right, for women. Women were not born with the right to vote, as some 'natural' condition. Nor were men, for that matter.

 

[percysunshine]

So, let's go down a completely different path with the question of the day. In the animal kingdom, the 'ant' could not survive without the 'colony'. So the natural rights of the 'ant' could not exist without the government provided by the ant colony.


Right...?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is a natural right. It happened long before humans ever showed up on the planet and invented abstract philosophy.

Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?

I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?

Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?

See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?

I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy. The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.

 

[percysunshine]

Did you know there are certain species of rabbits that if pregnant during a time of severe food shortage will spontaneously abort their fetuses?

I guess abortion was a 'natural right' long before humans ever showed up an invented abstract philosophy, eh?

Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?

See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?

I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy. The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.

This is what happens when I do not read all the posts in a thread. I miss something.

Be flexible, now it is ants and bees....chuckle

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's remember, humans as a species have always been a social animal, therefore, we have always existed under some sort of government, even down to the level of family groups.

Therefore, human government either predated human 'rights', or, they evolved concurrently.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you know that there are species of ants that are all clones?

See what happens when you try to trade non sequiturs with someone who is full of useless facts?

I wasn't the one who introduced animals into the thread for purposes of analogy. The other poster wanted to talk about wolves and rabbits, so I talked about wolves and rabbits.

This is what happens when I do not read all the posts in a thread. I miss something.

Be flexible, now it is ants and bees....chuckle

.

You brought up wolves and rabbits. Do wolfpacks have a government? Yes they do. Does the government of the wolfpack decide which wolves have which rights, and to what extent? Yes they do.

 

[dblack]

What is or isn't a right is subjective.

How are you defining "right"?

As a legally protected right. What you think is a right, or what you think should be a right, if not protected by law, is not a right.

Well, there you go. By that definition, certainly rights "come from" government - or at least from whatever authority is charged with protecting them.

My understanding is that the rights discussed in the OP, the 'un(in)alienable rights' referenced by Jefferson in the DOI, meant those freedoms we are empowered to exercise before governments come into the picture. Sort of the hypothetical 'starting place', a person's ideal situation before they 'enter' society. He then sights securing those rights as the justification for creating governments - to mitigate our rights in a social context. I'd argue that this is a specific kind of freedom, objectively described and defined.

For example, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. Before the amendment, it was not a right, for women. Women were not born with the right to vote, as some 'natural' condition. Nor were men, for that matter.

Yeah. So that's more what we're talking about when we refer to 'civil rights', those rights we protect with government, which isn't necessarily all of our inalienable rights, but a subset. These rights would be subjective, depending on the specific society and government in question.