Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[percysunshine]

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.

But the lone wolf must have been first, or there would never be a pack.

If we buy into the analogy, anyway.

 

[percysunshine]

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.

Family groups have always been a feature of human evolution? And the family group is the most basic and simple form of government?

An interesting proposition.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I do not think of voting as a natural right because, as you pointed out, it is impossible to vote unless you have permission to vote from someone else. When you can point to the guy that gives me permission to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you can claim that those are not natural rights. Until you do, you are the one that is confused.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...?

.

Which ants?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The other poster was making a point that was on topic, yours was all about proving how adept you are at saying things that aren't on point. I can do that longer than you because I have a store of trivia that comes from reading thousands of books.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Remember, every rule has an exception.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I do not think of voting as a natural right because, as you pointed out, it is impossible to vote unless you have permission to vote from someone else. When you can point to the guy that gives me permission to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you can claim that those are not natural rights. Until you do, you are the one that is confused.

Voting falls under the category of pursuit of happiness.

 

[percysunshine]

Voting falls under the category of pursuit of happiness.

The long lines have always annoyed me. Has anyone built an App for this?

.

 

[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.

Family groups have always been a feature of human evolution? And the family group is the most basic and simple form of government?

An interesting proposition.

.

The apes and monkeys are almost all social, i.e., living in groups as opposed to being solitary - I think orangutans might be an exception. Within those social structures there is governance. There were systems of laws in the most primitive of human societies, even if they were unwritten.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I do not think of voting as a natural right because, as you pointed out, it is impossible to vote unless you have permission to vote from someone else. When you can point to the guy that gives me permission to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you can claim that those are not natural rights. Until you do, you are the one that is confused.

Voting falls under the category of pursuit of happiness.

So does not voting, what's your point?

 

[Listening]

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.

Could you please post something cogent....at least once ?

So there is no example of a society without a government ?

 

[Listening]

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.

This is the OP.

While I have appreciated the debate that has gone on here, it is quite clear that some themes are emerging.

Some claim that if you were in a forest, by yourself, in no contact with anyone, you would have rights.

Others say, such a person has no right because none are needed. Hence, if they are not needed, they don't exist.

Some say that once this person comes in contact with someone, then there is the potential for "issues" such as this someone might be bigger and throw the guy out of his cabin (loss of property). His "natural" rights were violated.

Others say that he had no rights and they were not violated because they had not yet been granted.

And still some ask, even if he had them....so what ? They were violated.

This is what Benson was saying. This guy in the woods gets together with others in the woods and they form a pact to collectively protect each other. Is that a government ? Who knows.

The point being that as Benson (and Jay) said, people join to protect rights (or form them as some claim).

In the end, you'll never prove it one way or the other. What is important is that the outcome of adopting one philosophy or another is worth considering.

Those of you in the "government forms them" category..answer this....if the government decides to shoot everyone with red hair (thus depriving them of their right to life)....or just shoot them in the ass....what is your take on that. Would you rebel ? And if so, using what justification ?

 

[G.T.]

Ill respond to you, listening, because you dont devolve into the minutia.

I believe rights are a human construct - not natural; however, i also feel that certain ones (based on our ability to reason) are obviously best to consider sacrosanct.

You can arrive at those based on your observation of coexistance, and also your own cognition.

So what is the actionabke difference of whether i feel they are "natural" or not ---since i feel theyre sacrosanct?

Truth. Thats all. The "outcome" of considering their source one way or the other should not be the GUIDE toward belief in the truth. The truth alone unbiased is all that matters.

Im not afraid that because i dont feel these rights are natural that men will become by and large too complacent to fight for them. But even if they DO - my unwant of that outcome shoukd still be irrelevant to the truth.

 

[Foxfyre]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I have to quarrel a wee bit with this one. The Founders knew that there was evil in the world and that we live in a world in which the biggest, baddest, strongest makes the rules and assigns the rights the people would have. Those holding such power would infringe on, deny, trample on the rights of the people.

Their intent was that we have a federal government that would recognize natural rights and be given ability to 'secure' them, i.e. prevent anyone from infringing, denying, trampling on, or otherwise taking them away. And once that was done, the people would then enjoy the blessings of liberty so that they could govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

In the simplest terms, the Founders viewed as a natural right anything that required no contribution or participation by others. And that would include the ability to do with one's legally and ethically acquired property whatever the person wished to do that violated nobody else's rights.

 

[G.T.]

Ill tell ya somthing else too, listening.

I apologize for the thread devolving.

I responded in kind to each person who had to add snivveling remarks like "apparently some ppl are such such".....or " ugh i guess its soo over their heads," etc.

I dont like when those elements are introduced into a previously cordial convo, and so instead of ignoring it i responded with same and for that i apologize.

 

[Listening]

Ill respond to you, listening, because you dont devolve into the minutia.

I believe rights are a human construct - not natural; however, i also feel that certain ones (based on our ability to reason) are obviously best to consider sacrosanct.

You can arrive at those based on your observation of coexistance, and also your own cognition.

So what is the actionabke difference of whether i feel they are "natural" or not ---since i feel theyre sacrosanct?

Truth. Thats all. The "outcome" of considering their source one way or the other should not be the GUIDE toward belief in the truth. The truth alone unbiased is all that matters.

Im not afraid that because i dont feel these rights are natural that men will become by and large too complacent to fight for them. But even if they DO - my unwant of that outcome shoukd still be irrelevant to the truth.

Truth is also something of a construct.

You might love your wife. But you could not prove it to me directly (by titrating something).

Thanks for the reasoned response.

 

[G.T.]

Yea for sure - some truth is a construct.....but im not a believer of a subjective reality when it comes to certain things that i feel we can observe as concrete. Such as concrete itself. But it still has merit to seek it out (truth) whatever it is.....until life's end in my opinion.

 

[dcraelin]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/dcraelin-albums-founders-with-quotes-picture6508-carlin3.png

 

[Listening]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I have to quarrel a wee bit with this one. The Founders knew that there was evil in the world and that we live in a world in which the biggest, baddest, strongest makes the rules and assigns the rights the people would have. Those holding such power would infringe on, deny, trample on the rights of the people.

Their intent was that we have a federal government that would recognize natural rights and be given ability to 'secure' them, i.e. prevent anyone from infringing, denying, trampling on, or otherwise taking them away. And once that was done, the people would then enjoy the blessings of liberty so that they could govern themselves and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

In the simplest terms, the Founders viewed as a natural right anything that required no contribution or participation by others. And that would include the ability to do with one's legally and ethically acquired property whatever the person wished to do that violated nobody else's rights.

Foxy...it's good to hear from you.

I am not sure what the quarrel is (with the thread). It's represented on both sides.

However, the real question is whether or not such rights (if they exist) are meaningful unless they are protected (supposedly by government). If they are not meaningful...do they exist.

This keeps coming back to almost a chicken and egg syndrom.

But, it is the outcome that I view as being important.

If government creates rights, they can take them too (and they do this often).

However, if you think rights come form government, then do you whine when they take them or do you suck on it.

If you think they are yours and the government is simply taking them....seems like you'd be more prone to take exception (maybe with a rifle) when they come for them.

 

[Listening]

Yea for sure - some truth is a construct.....but im not a believer of a subjective reality when it comes to certain things that i feel we can observe as concrete. Such as concrete itself. But it still has merit to seek it out (truth) whatever it is.....until life's end in my opinion.

A bit of a digression, but a worthwhile one.

I agree with your final statement.

My question to you....what role do you have in protecting your rights ?