Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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.

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 ?

Id put it like this:

I have a natural instinct to want to stay alive.
i realize i am not the toughest man on earth.
i believe living is worth while.
therefore - i believe in securing the right to life for myself and my fellow humans, even if it means self sacrifice and that last part (self sacrifice) is based purely on my empathy/emotions/love and not on reason.

 

[G.T.]

If i had no empathy - or "care" put bluntly - for others then i cant think of a logical reason to fight for anyones life but my own.

Good thing nature/god/environment/or evolution (agnostic here) gave me empathy here or id have murdered my wife for getting the coffee order wrong today

 

[Listening]

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

I am not going to mock you for quoting George.

I wish, however, I had the chance to mock George to his face.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Let me use reason to show you the flaws in your position.

If rights do not exist outside the construct of government then government is the ultimate arbiter of rights. That means that any argument that centers around rights being sacrosanct would have to assume that governments themselves are sacrosanct. You are then faced with the paradox of arguing that it is possible to actually interfere with the source of something that cannot be interfered with.

This is the same dilemma that Christians often face when they are confronted by a government that violates their rights. Romans 13 clearly tells them that God is the source of government, and that obeying the government is an extension of obeying God. Even today, many Christians have trouble with the idea that any rebellion against a government is ever justified.

Personally, I prefer to never assume that, simply because someone has power, that that power gives them a license to issue rules that negatively impact my life. Ultimately, that is what the consent of the governed is all about, we have the right to refuse to obey, and to actually fight, because government can be wrong.

That is why you cannot simultaneously argue that government is the source of rights and that people can fight for their rights when the government takes them away. You might have a hard time accepting the fact that your position is based on flawed logic, but it is.

Your positions indefensible, rights cannot both come from a government we can fight and be sacrosanct. I will leave you to figure out where rights come from since you refuse to admit they come from anything other than government, yet insist they actually are more important than government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Natural rights, inalienable rights, innate rights – all refer to the same fundamental fact of law: that to be human, sentient, and in possession of one’s own free will affords the individual the privileges and immunities necessary to secure his civil liberties.

To be legitimate, therefore, government must acknowledge and respect these rights as mandated by the rule of law and as codified by the Constitution; and government forfeits its legitimacy and authority when it seeks to violate citizens’ civil liberties in violation of the Constitution and its case law.

Consequently, it is incumbent upon government – created by the people, representing the people, and acting at the behest of the people – to act in a manner that comports with the jurisprudence of the Founding Document; and failing to do so, subjects itself to attack in the courts by private citizens or classes of persons so adversely effected.

Rights do indeed exist and are tangible, just as each individual exists and is tangible; the proof of this can be found in the words freely written and spoken, the art and ideas freely created and expressed, and the people as they freely assemble to engage their government in the venue of political, social, and legal discourse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You don't like it when people care about something unless they agree with your self contradictory position? Tough.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Yet he based an entire routine around people telling him he had no right to say certain things.

Interesting.



On the other hand, I understand using comedy to make a point, a concept that seems to have flown right over your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Of course they have meaning even if they aren't protected by the government. Even the idiots that argue that government actually creates rights believe that, there problem is that they don't see how their position uses circular reasoning to destroy itself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

Id put it like this:

I have a natural instinct to want to stay alive.
i realize i am not the toughest man on earth.
i believe living is worth while.
therefore - i believe in securing the right to life for myself and my fellow humans, even if it means self sacrifice and that last part (self sacrifice) is based purely on my empathy/emotions/love and not on reason.

In other words, you believe you have a right to life even if the government tries to tell you otherwise. In other words, rights exist without government, even if you refuse to call them natural.

 

[G.T.]

Qwb this is the clean debate zone.

See ya dude.

And your if thans in paragraph one are not true.


But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.

 

[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.

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.

Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.

But no. Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.

Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not. So governments do not confer rights. What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.

The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is. That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is. A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.

A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Qwb this is the clean debate zone.

See ya dude.

And your if thans in paragraph one are not true.


But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.

What, precisely, is untrue? Your position through out this discussion has been that you are right, and that everyone else is wrong.

You then tried to claim that there was no logical argument that showed that natural rights exist. When I presented one, you tried to argue that it wasn't actually logic, until I proved it was.

You then tried to claim that reason shows that natural rights don't exist, even though reason is just another name for logic, which can prove anything if you start with the right premise.

I then used reason to show the inherent contradictions in your claim that rights come from government, but people are still justified in fighting for them You dismissed that as a lie, and, once again, declared yourself the superior intellect.

Funny how the guy that is totally incapable of actually mustering an argument other than "Because I say so" holds everyone who disagrees with him in contempt.

 

[G.T.]

Qwb this is the clean debate zone.

See ya dude.

And your if thans in paragraph one are not true.


But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.

What, precisely, is untrue? Your position through out this discussion has been that you are right, and that everyone else is wrong.

You then tried to claim that there was no logical argument that showed that natural rights exist. When I presented one, you tried to argue that it wasn't actually logic, until I proved it was.

You then tried to claim that reason shows that natural rights don't exist, even though reason is just another name for logic, which can prove anything if you start with the right premise.

I then used reason to show the inherent contradictions in your claim that rights come from government, but people are still justified in fighting for them You dismissed that as a lie, and, once again, declared yourself the superior intellect.

Funny how the guy that is totally incapable of actually mustering an argument other than "Because I say so" holds everyone who disagrees with him in contempt.

Oh.

and your position is what, that you're wrong and everyone else is right?

your reason was FLAWED.

 

[G.T.]

I never said rights come from Government.

Help yourself out by starting there.

 

[G.T.]

Let me use reason to show you the flaws in your position.

If rights do not exist outside the construct of government.

(I never said this)

then government is the ultimate arbiter of rights .

(even if I had said part one: this reasoning is flawed: the governed still can agree or disagree with the government, no matter WHAT, so there's an aweful LOFTY breakdown in your logic).

That means that any argument that centers around rights being sacrosanct would have to assume that governments themselves are sacrosanct.

(no it wouldn't. I can consider my wife sacrosanct same as I consider certain rights to be. a government doesn't even need to EXIST for your PERSON to consider something sacrosanct. again, your "if then" has no merit. It's completely made up wioth no logical foundation).

You are then faced with the paradox of arguing that it is possible to actually interfere with the source of something that cannot be interfered with. .

(no, because I never said the government was the source, so you're not even arguing with anything I said yet declaring I'm somehow cocky for not "coming to your enlightenment" somehow. I said and have maintained that rights came from man's brain, not nature (unless we're playing the canard "mans brain IS NATURE!" which , sure.)

Your positions indefensible, rights cannot both come from a government we can fight and be sacrosanct. I will leave you to figure out where rights come from since you refuse to admit they come from anything other than government, yet insist they actually are more important than government.

Good thing you misrepresented my position then.

My responses are in parenthesis and bold.

Have a nice day.

 

[Listening]

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.

Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.

But no. Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.

Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not. So governments do not confer rights. What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.

The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is. That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is. A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.

A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.

I understand your position. It is mine too.

However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread. It is a mess.

While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.

But no. Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.

Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not. So governments do not confer rights. What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.

The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is. That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is. A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.

A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.

I understand your position. It is mine too.

However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread. It is a mess.

While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.

I'd fall into agreement too if the word natural were replaced with basic.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Believe me, that rifle has looked pretty good now and then, but alas, I have always been one to fight more with ideas and reason than via fisticuffs and bullets and stuff like that.

But no. Rights do not come from government, because I (as well as the Founding Fathers and those great minds they studied) reject that one person, no matter who he/she is, can confer a 'right' upon another.

Rights either exist--have always existed--or they do not. So governments do not confer rights. What a government confers is rather a privilege or something that is allowed at this time, and that can just be as easily taken away tonight or tomorrow or some other time.

The concept of unalienable or God-given or natural rights is the essential core of what liberty is. That each of us can and will be who and what we are and are unlimited in what we do unless we interfere with who and what somebody else is. A natural right cannot require contribution or participation by any other because that negates the very concept of what a natural right is.

A government that recognizes natural rights and protects them is not at all the same as a government that assigns the 'rights' that the people will have.

I understand your position. It is mine too.

However, if you were a masochist....you'd read this thread. It is a mess.

While the question of who confers what is always going to rage...the real issue is what your ideology drives.

LOL. I read enough of it to see the mess.

I don't think ideology has that much to do with it though our ideology does seem to be a component on whether a person is able to focus on and analyze and intelligently discuss a concept or will rather focus on and attack/criticize/belittle/ridicule/blame other people.

For instance I think the leftists/political class/statists/progressives/modern day liberals cannot wrap their mind around a concept of natural or unalienable rights. They don't understand it, can't define it, and certainly can't appreciate it. Which is why they are who they are I suppose. They will most often describe a right as what people ought to embrace, ought to require, ought to defend in their opinion. A concept of live and let live just isn't in their psyche.

And I hasten to add that there are also some on the right who are just that fixated in their ideology and just as inflexible in their understandings.

But I do think more on the right can and do understand what unalienable rights are and why recognition of them and defense of them is necessarily for liberty to exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Qwb this is the clean debate zone.

See ya dude.

And your if thans in paragraph one are not true.


But at any rate - you are not worthy of my time youre poo flinging. Peace.

What, precisely, is untrue? Your position through out this discussion has been that you are right, and that everyone else is wrong.

You then tried to claim that there was no logical argument that showed that natural rights exist. When I presented one, you tried to argue that it wasn't actually logic, until I proved it was.

You then tried to claim that reason shows that natural rights don't exist, even though reason is just another name for logic, which can prove anything if you start with the right premise.

I then used reason to show the inherent contradictions in your claim that rights come from government, but people are still justified in fighting for them You dismissed that as a lie, and, once again, declared yourself the superior intellect.

Funny how the guy that is totally incapable of actually mustering an argument other than "Because I say so" holds everyone who disagrees with him in contempt.

Oh.

and your position is what, that you're wrong and everyone else is right?

your reason was FLAWED.

My position is that rights are inherent in all living beings. I have defended that position, and provided links to actual evidence that supports it.

As I pointed out at the time, my logic was valid because the premises led to conclusions, which led to more conclusions, which led to the conclusion that natural rights exist outside government. You were free to show why the conclusions were invalid, or even show that my premises were false. All you were able to muster was "Your reason was flawed." That is still all you have, despite my pointing out how to actually attack my arguments using real logic.

On the other hand, I have never actually declared myself the winner of the debate, while you have.

 

[G.T.]

Your reasoning WAS flawed.

Also - I never declared myself the winner of anything. All I merely said was that no logical proof has been presented as to rights being natural. And it hasn't. And I'm not you, I don't sit here and hours after people are having a LIVE discussion, go back 10 pages in the thread and start answering everything one by one by one when the people aren't even here anymore. That's a pain in the ass. I answer who is here and now having a discussion with me, that's just my personal way to enjoy the site.

That every one of your posts wasn't broken down word by word doesn't mean that there's no answer for them - but you keep sticking your chest out as though they're indisputable. They are not.