Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[G.T.]

No all i have to agree with is that natural rights as the founders described (observed by men) is not the ssme thing as saying INVENTED by men, and parsing phrases doesnt change that in any way shape or form.

You yourself called them natural rights outside of man and now are back to tell me they actually DO come from mens brain and mens brain is a part of nature so voila? NICE!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To clear things up for you, you could either google my dozens of posts where I acknowledged that man's brain is nature - but was separating men's brain for this discussion......


or you can continue to argue with what I never said like you've been, and waste your own valuable time doing so.

I prefer to use the logic you claim doesn't exist to make my point.

Rights come from man.
Man comes from nature.
Therefore, rights come from nature.

 

[G.T.]

tell us more about how god is just a concept and not an entity bro

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No all i have to agree with is that natural rights as the founders described (observed by men) is not the ssme thing as saying INVENTED by men, and parsing phrases doesnt change that in any way shape or form.

You yourself called them natural rights outside of man and now are back to tell me they actually DO come from mens brain and mens brain is a part of nature so voila? NICE!

Why do I have to agree to that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

tell us more about how god is just a concept and not an entity bro

Tell us more about how man isn't natural.

See, I can throw in straw man arguments, I just prefer to actually mock what you are saying.

 

[G.T.]

This is rich.

Rights come from mens brains. I agree.
mans brain is in nature. I agree.
natural rights theory does not agree with sentence #1.
I am arguing against rights preexising mens invention of them, thus i am arguing against natural rights as described by the founders but not LITERALLY saying they didnt come from a facet of nature (mens brain).

But thats not what natural rights theory is so.......again, waste of time.

 

[G.T.]

Youre more interested in a false gotcha moment instead of standing by your position or else the frivolous and incomprehensible tangents wouodnt exist.

Would it be cathartic bro?

Go ahead and have your moment man! Zinger whoa! The founding principle of natural rights meant "invented by mans brain?" No? Then you waste MY time now.

 

[G.T.]

The clarification of natural rights as a literal term and natural rights: the theory that rights exist in nature whethrr theyre recognized or not.......

Happened WAAAAAAAAAAAAAyyyyyyy long ago in this thread.


Jeebus what a waste of time/bandwidth.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

you pompous ass....he thought restrictions against using words was silly and inconsistent....I dont think he said "right" in that context,....... he also thought all the whining about rights was too.

at about the 4.00 minute mark he talks about "rights"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8]George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dcraelin]

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.

why would you mock me or George?

 

[G.T.]

He just wanted to say gotcha....no matter how frivolous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is rich.

Rights come from mens brains. I agree.
mans brain is in nature. I agree.
natural rights theory does not agree with sentence #1.
I am arguing against rights preexising mens invention of them, thus i am arguing against natural rights as described by the founders but not LITERALLY saying they didnt come from a facet of nature (mens brain).

But thats not what natural rights theory is so.......again, waste of time.

Wow, I didn't realize I had to stick with what you think other people believe in order to have a point. I guess I can see why you have so much trouble with the concept if you think the only valid approach to discussing it is what you think people believe. Would you mind telling me what it is I believe so that I can properly argue with you?

 

[Sallow]

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 ?

No.

Not really.

None that come to mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Youre more interested in a false gotcha moment instead of standing by your position or else the frivolous and incomprehensible tangents wouodnt exist.

Would it be cathartic bro?

Go ahead and have your moment man! Zinger whoa! The founding principle of natural rights meant "invented by mans brain?" No? Then you waste MY time now.

If that was all I was interested in I would have sprung it by now. I actually enjoy arguing with people.

 

[G.T.]

Good for you bro

 

[Sallow]

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?

Nope.

 

[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.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqvLTJfYnik"]George Carlin - Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television[/ame]
On the other hand, I understand using comedy to make a point, a concept that seems to have flown right over your head.

you pompous ass....he thought restrictions against using words was silly and inconsistent....I dont think he said "right" in that context,....... he also thought all the whining about rights was too.

at about the 4.00 minute mark he talks about "rights"
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8"]George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube[/ame]

You do know that I was pointing out his inconsistent position, don't you? He actually went to jail over that 7 words routine because it violated local laws, not just the FCC regulations. He also took the fight about the words all the way to the Supreme Court.

Like I said, interesting.

 

[dcraelin]

Yet he based an entire routine around people telling him he had no right to say certain things.
Interesting.
George Carlin - Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television
On the other hand, I understand using comedy to make a point, a concept that seems to have flown right over your head.

you pompous ass....he thought restrictions against using words was silly and inconsistent....I dont think he said "right" in that context,....... he also thought all the whining about rights was too.

at about the 4.00 minute mark he talks about "rights"
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8"]George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube[/ame]

You do know that I was pointing out his inconsistent position, don't you? He actually went to jail over that 7 words routine because it violated local laws, not just the FCC regulations. He also took the fight about the words all the way to the Supreme Court.
Like I said, interesting.

no i didnt get that from your post,.......just read some about it on wikipedia and I dont think it was him that took it all the way to the supreme court.

He maybe was being a bit inconsistent, but I think hes mainly pointing to idea that rights are dependent on governments and I would like to think he agrees with Jefferson in what he says in the picture I posted previously.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This is rich.

Rights come from mens brains. I agree.
mans brain is in nature. I agree.
natural rights theory does not agree with sentence #1.
I am arguing against rights preexising mens invention of them, thus i am arguing against natural rights as described by the founders but not LITERALLY saying they didnt come from a facet of nature (mens brain).

But thats not what natural rights theory is so.......again, waste of time.

Correct, G.T., that's not what it is. Still arguing with straw men, I see. Quantum, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Notwithstanding, G.T.'s wrong too.

The material facts of natural law are apprehended by man via historical experience and are affirmed by the universal imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision, which is not quite the same thing that Quantum is arguing, especially because the understanding of the facts of natural law is derived from the dynamics of human conduct and human interaction.

The translation of natural law into the conventions of civil government, including the accommodations of natural rights in terms of civil liberties and the additional privileges of the collective in terms of civil rights: these are the abstractions of political science.

Natural rights are concrete and precede the machinations of civil government that are exerted by sentient creatures.

That's the real deal, G.T., not a straw man. And make no mistake about it, the real deal, the actual apology for natural law, utterly destroys your relativistic red herrings concerning social constructs and the like.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

• 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.


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.



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.



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

Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are

(I started to post this the other day, but realized that the rationale might not be readily accessible to those who do not have my background in the history of law. The post directly underneath this one drives the facts home: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-57.html#post8888602 . I've been busy with other things and haven't had the time to complete the standard apology for natural law.)

Please carefully consider the following. I know what I'm talking about.

Quantum, I really wish you hadn't made the Ability = Rights argument. While inalienable natural rights would necessarily be things that are at the very least embedded in nature, not afforded by government: abilities, even those as seemingly fundamental as the ability to think and speak, are not synonymous to rights. G.T. is right. No matter how you configure your syllogism or express its respective constituents, you're not going to make that work. The expressions of any given innate ability must be related to/weighted against their effects on others.

Notwithstanding, innate abilities and free will are the pertinent constituents residing within the sphere of the dichotomies (light and transient transgressions-existential transgressions and initial force-defensive force) that govern the apprehension of what inalienable natural rights are, as opposed to what they are not. Though one need not appeal to God to demonstrate what these rights are, one cannot do so outside the context of the consequences of moral decision in terms of action and reaction.

1. Under the rule of law in the state of civil government, how does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights?

2. In the state of nature, how does one distinguish the difference between innate rights and innate freedoms?

3. In either the state of nature or the state of civil government, how does one distinguish the difference between the light and transient transgressions of rights and the existential transgressions of the same?

4. How does one discern where one's rights end and where another's rights begin?

5. What is the inherently contradictory and self-negating, metaphysical presupposition underlying the claim that all rights are mere social constructs or the political rights afforded by government?

The answers to these questions readily divulge the identity of the inalienable natural rights of man and utterly destroy Rabbi's and G.T. et. al.'s claptrap, but their wont is to go on forever arguing against straw men rather than answer these questions and grapple with the self-evident imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision.

The only ones here going on and on about stuff that is purely abstract are the relativists. The abstractions of social constructs. Esoteric blather about what rights aren't sans any discernible indication as to what they are. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. The abstractions of political science in terms of the respective institutional powers and formulations of civil government, which, by the way, the exigencies of nature and the aspirations of sentience inarguably precede in order and command. It's not the other way around.

In the meantime, natural law deals with the concrete realities and material outcomes of everyday life.

By the way, dblack, that's why it's called natural law; natural rights are not mere abstractions, and are not anything less than absolute.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Hint: natural, innate, things that would necessarily be foundationally concrete; of the first order rationally, and readily apparent empirically.