Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not even a reply. GDP does not exist without production. We cannot produce an infinite amount of stuff. Take the 6th grade math question on your homework: the earth has the materials to make 600,000 tons of concrete. If we assemble those materials and pave a road using 600,000 tons worth of concrete, does the Earth gain 600,000 tons or does it stay the same? The correct answer is the earth remains the same weight.

It is the same. You cannot create useful value or products without production. Production can only operate within our planet. Are you proposing wealth exists outside our finite planet? Maybe you think the earth is flat and extends infinitely. News flash: it's a finite planet and under no condition can infinite wealth be generated from a finite system. Do you really think you can count to infinity starting with finite numbers?

Wow, you missed the point, why am I not surprised?

You said that all increased wealth is tied to productivity. GDP has consistently grown faster than productivity, where is all that extra wealth coming from? Another question, if production is solely limited to our planet, how do you explain the fact that that the International Space Station exists? Did you know it was actually built in space? And that multiple companies have plans to actually mine various solar system bodies that are not on the Earth?

 

[RKMBrown]

Funny, I know plenty of people that bought PCs without paying for Windows.

By the way, IBM never had 90% of the market. Also, they licensed MS-DOS from Jobs, not the other way around. Jobs kept the rights and sold it to other companies at the same time. The reason it took so much of the market was it was built to run on Intel chips.

Ok, maybe it was 81% not 90%.

You off your meds today? Jobs worked for Apple not Microsoft.

IBM paid for MS-DOS, IBM did all the testing, IBM re-wrote it for Billy. Anyways I'm not talking about MS-DOS, nimrod. I'm talking about Windows, duh.

Here's a rough primer on the issue.
Bundling of Microsoft Windows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny how IBM didn't build Windows either, but don't let facts destroy your narrative.

PC clones had a fairly large percentage of the market at one time, but IBM never even got up to 50%.

I didn't say they built windows jerk. I didn't say they had the majority of the puny "PC" market. Put down the alcohol.

 

[gnarlylove]

You said that all increased wealth is tied to productivity. GDP has consistently grown faster than productivity, where is all that extra wealth coming from?

The answer is speculation and credit. Is credit based in actual production? No. It's based on future expectations. When you borrow 10,000, the bank assumes it has another 10,000 + interest and so it adds that to its existing figures and lends all but 10% of that out despite the fact the credit is not yet real and may never become real. Thereby banks can "create wealth" by credit, which isn't based in real production. So naturally wealth that is not grounded in real production on Earth, namely speculation, can and does indeed mimic infinite generation although it takes a crazy person to say "here on this blue rock lies infinity." It is no different than saying "I the madman have counted to infinity starting from 1."

Moreover, the speculative economy is juxtaposed with the term "real economy" among economists all the time. Even you make this distinction by showing GDP fails to match speculation. So why are you arguing speculation is real when you know by its very nature it's not based in the here and now, its based on futures, stock options etc.? If you care to learn more read here: The Real Economy & the Bubble Economy :: Monthly Review

Again, the world is finite. No finite system can generate infinite results. It is a tautology. Either you get it or you keep dancing around this self-evident truth.

Another question, if production is solely limited to our planet, how do you explain the fact that that the International Space Station exists? Did you know it was actually built in space? And that multiple companies have plans to actually mine various solar system bodies that are not on the Earth?

Was the ISS created from materials from outside our finite planet? Even if it was created from products from our solar system, we know that the Milky Way solar system is finite, it has a defined boundary in the space-time continuum. Boundaries imply finitude.

You are grasping at straws to argue the ISS has value. It has literally no value outside the fact it exists so close to Earth. Give up your indefensible position. I know its hard for the first time in your life to realize you are wrong, but it makes you stronger to be able to admit flaws so you can make improvements.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can take away all three----try again

You can try. But you better bring a big gun.

Why bring a gun when you can bring an army of Federal Agents to defend a State's right to take said liberties away on a whim? See Wacko mass murders. See Katrina disarming of the citizens to "protect" them from themselves for demonstrations. See Un-Patriot act drone killings of American citizens.

The 14th amendment due process clause allows the states, and by inclusion feds acting on behalf of the states, to take our life, liberty, and happiness away from us by merely making up whatever excuse they want and calling it due process.

Indeed, these are outrages. Still you're not saying that natural rights don't exist, are you?

You're moral outrage--and right you are!--arises from somewhere inside you, not from without.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

dblack, glad it tickled you. It tickled me hehe

Fox, I like your efforts but again I'm going to have to call you out. So free markets don't enable humans to garner wealth? Strange. Pretty sure you're not living in the same world I am.

Of course free markets enable humans to garner wealth. That is the purpose of those who engage in commercial enterprise. And the vast majority of them are doing it for purely selfish motives. And in so doing they serve the rest of us quite well.

Again, what planet are you talking about? You and dblack are just saying things that sound pleasant to you because you believe them. But in order for beliefs to be rational they must be defensible. Neither of you are participating in defensible argument. Let me explain why because you have no clue what I'm talking about, because neither of you have ever cared to investigate what the rules of logic are and what constitutes a cogent proposition--one that is supported by evidence.

Fox, if you admit human beings garner wealth in free markets, then you must also recognize the fact that humans also will use their wealth for leverage into gaining access to more wealth. It is as human as masturbaiton for a person who finds himself with more than others to use that accumulation to generate even greater accumulation.

Now please consider the real world (which you clearly don't do often in debate). What do persons who have a lot of money do? They use whatever means within law (and outside of technical legality) to gain ever greater sums. How do they do this? Please look at reality! They took Federal Election Commission to the Supreme Court to expand political donations per election cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I'm talking about !!!!!!!!! A wrench has been thrown into free markets by virtue of wealthy persons (i.e. corporations) have 100% say in politics and the people have none.

That is some kind of upside "liberty" that your espousing, which inevitably leads to this scenario. Defining liberty as natural rights not being infringed upon precisely undermines your whole argument because free markets always end up with the markets favoring the winners who naturally exploit losers in order to make even greater sums. Thus the losers are further cast into loser-hood. Sounds like a great reality to live in, which we do!

So you may start with a free market but you end up with people using their leverages to influence law so that they are increasingly favored, drowning out all other voices. I thought freedom was where people had a say in their own lives. We currently don't. Tell me how you vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs?

Well, it wasn't we classical liberals who yammered for the Sixteenth Amendment. We fought against its ratification. Grab a time machine, go back and assassinate Wilson. Problem solved.

'Course, I got a feelin' you think I’ve gone off the deep end. But if you solve this riddle, you'll open up a whole new world of truth in which things are even worse than you imagine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

in my view, the great conceit of the socialist mindset is that claim that 'winners' imply 'losers'. My neighbor becoming fantastically wealthy simply doesn't make me any poorer. It can only be viewed that way relatively, in which case one must ask how my would situation change if my wealthy neighbor were simply 'disappeared'?

You are accusing socialists of excessive pride in claiming some people are rich and others are not?

What's more is you claim that ownership does not imply reduced availability. So if Monsanto owns 10% of the world, does that mean there is still 100% available? No. It means the rest of the inhabitant must do with 90%. What if 1% of the world owns 40% of its wealth? What does that leave for 99% of people? You're right, 60%. And believe it or not, 40% of the world really is owned by 1%. World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers | Money | The Guardian

I know you don't take reality serious but this planet is finite. Corporations can only claim a finite amount. So if corporations own half the world, they are winners. We both agree. Does that mean they are benefiting the rest? Not necessarily. People do not always act in the interests of other people. And indeed those in power often act in their own interests to the dismay of other groups. Right? How do you think this dynamic of 1% owning 40% influences the rest of the inhabitants? Take a look around, figuratively. There is abjection among the world's poor. Why is that? That is precisely because corporations have claimed ownership of lands and drove subsistence farmers off in order to make cash crops. How does this benefit people who were living on the land and now are forced into cities or hillsides?

Did those drive from their land in Haiti or Cuba or Malaysia (I could go on and on) people loose? Now they are tied into depending on markets whereas they once were completely free human beings without any needs of the global market.

Winners on a finite world implies losers. Just like if there are 100 jelly beans and I take 90, does that leave you with 100 also?

On "planet-dblack" the world is infinite and infinite growth is possible. Thus we can have winners without losers. And in your narrow and obviously false premise, you know that our planet is finite. But you refuse to admit that if you take away from the totality, you no longer have access to the totality. The totality has shrunk. Shrinking is not different from loosing. The more elites have, the less that can be distributed among people. I'm not saying corporations and the rich don't give back or distribute, but the only way profit exists is they keep more than they distribute. Thus, the people loose.

Zero-sum gain? What is more: a 10% slice of a big honkin' pie or a 30% slice of an incy wincy little pie?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Establishing What the Inalienable Rights of Man Are

G.T. et. al., the immediate origin of natural rights is, uh, you know, nature, and the God of nature is the ultimate origin.

While one need not appeal to God to demonstrate their actuality and inviolability, as I have already shown, Quantum, one must never forget the fact of their ultimate origin. One does not prove what innate rights are with syllogisms predicated on ability or free will. Natural rights are not synonymous to ability and they are not predicated on ability. The matter is not abstract in the sense that the know-nothings would have it, but it's not that simple either. The origin and the essence of the natural rights of man have been established for centuries. The concrete concerns on which they are immediately predicated and their identity have been established for centuries.

Disregard the implications regarding the ultimate origin of natural rights, you will end up making indefensible arguments regarding their nature and identity.

Please, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. It only confuses matters.

Natural rights are immediately predicated on the same real-world, dichotomic dynamics that divulge their exact identity: light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions and its correlate initial force-defensive force.

Period. End of discussion. They are real-world concerns. They are natural. They are concrete. They are material. They are absolute. Hence, they are identified and demonstrated accordingly. They are not identified and demonstrated with syllogisms predicated on secondary concerns.

I have the ability to wiggle my toes. So what?

I could lose that ability should some paralysis strike me. The point here is that when one argues natural rights on the basis of innate abilities, one fallaciously implies that they are subject to negation by the whims of other agents. They are not inalienable in the sense that they cannot (ability) be suppressed or violated; they are inalienable in the sense that they may not (consent) be suppressed or violated without dire consequences, which may include the use deadly force.

In the absence of violation, we have peace; in the presence of violation, war.

In other words, they are identified and demonstrated on the basis of the material impact that human actions have on the material concerns of human life, liberty and property. Period.

So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable because they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of ability.

RABBI, G.T. ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

DO YOU GET THE POINT OF THE FOLLOWING NOW?

Your claim that the mutual obligations of morality are not pertinent to understanding the essence of natural rights, particularly as they are carried over from the state of nature and expressed in the state of civil government, is false and irrational. Obviously, the understanding of this goes to their parameters, RABBI, one of the several things that accordingly you supposedly cannot be determined by sentient beings--for crying out loud! And that is self-evident too, given the necessities of the government's regulatory and judicial authority regarding the legitimate extent of civil liberties in the face of conflicting interests.

How about you stop wasting our time with your obviously ill-considered and fallacious claims as you think to preemptively negate the manifestly essential premises of natural law.

Your ignorance and closed-minded, intellectual bigotry are not the stuff of real arguments.

___________________________________________

Edit: So much for the silly red herrings of (1) the abstractions of social constructs and (2) the notion that natural rights are not inalienable because they can be suppressed or violated on the fallacious basis of ability.

Nothing you said refutes the point that natural rights only exist as ideas. They do not exist as facts.

Well, aside from the fact that it is self-evident that they do exist in every sense there is . . . in nature and as ultimately grounded in the mind of God, let's put what you just said through the wringer--stripped of its caveats, but with the identical predicate intact--and see what comes out the other side.

Natural rights only exist, but don't exist.

What is a fact about something, after all, but an idea about that something? Or do facts exist without sentience? And if so, in what sense would they matter in the absence of sentience?

Here's an interesting link: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

But, first, check this one out: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I guess Im saying any means is a form of government, unless I suppose a man lives completely alone and isolated from others. The argument IS largely semantics, as Edie Brickell, said in a song, Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.
I dont think a "freedom" is worth much if it cant be used. There is perhaps a common group of ideas that most men hold, Murder is wrong etc. that are common in the laws of all societies.

Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?

It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.

Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could. Carlin came right to the point, rights are an idea. I wouldnt have said CUTE idea....perhaps noble idea....but ideas differ among different people.....and are only instituted among men by government.

Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?

They are ideas made into reality.

So the idea of government existed before the actuality of government existed?

Where did the idea of government exist before?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

On question, what makes you think wealth is finite?

What is wealth?

Wealth is surplus value.

How is surplus value created?

Not from thin air but from productive labor.

Productive labor has a finite system with which to work (earth).

Therefore, surplus value is finite or real wealth is finite.

If you think wealth is printed money and credit, try eating printed money or your credit card when there's no planet on which to do productive labor. You'll find that money has no value. No body denies this, our currency is known as fiat--without basis.

I'm a simple man. I like inputs-output.

So you're saying that all the inputs are finitely . . . static? Yet the value of the output has been growing faster than the costs of the inputs. So greater efficiency and innovations--or is it the greater efficiency of innovations?--are of no affect in the equation, and what of the inputs, raw materials, beyond planet Earth? Are human resources finite? Static? Or finitely static?

I've always believed that the value of the output, both in terms of revenue and finished products, has been outpacing the costs of the inputs, but in light of what you're saying, I'm trying to understand how that could be so.

I'm also wondering about what things like digital information and nanotechnology do to your finite--or is it static?--inputs.

 

[Sallow]

I'll give you three.

Life, liberty and the pursiute of happiness.

I can take away all three----try again

You can try. But you better bring a big gun.

And this is where your whole argument collapses.

It's pretty confused too.

You folks are ascribing that rights are "natural" like instinct or biological functions.

And they are not.

You might have gotten some traction if you had subscribed to the notion that protocol is something that is "baseline" to human abilities. But even then, humans recognize different protocols depending upon nurture. And protocol is common in nature. Most animals have some method of setting up protocols been other animals of the same species. Like "marking territory" or that sort of thing.

"Rights" however, still stand as a human construct. And our 'western' notion of what rights are, exactly, is part of an evolutionary process.

We continue to define what government is and what we want it to do.

There isn't some "ironclad" never changing thing about it.

And it is a necessary part of insuring that we have these "inalienable" rights.

 

[Intense]

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.

Does Truth or Justice exist outside of Government? Of course it does. Why wouldn't unalienable rights? There is a sense inside each one of us that has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong action, right and wrong intent. This sense is more than the training wheels society imposes on us, further, it is arguably the source of what society does establish, tested through all time, passed on from generation to generation.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

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.

Does Truth or Justice exist outside of Government? Of course it does. Why wouldn't unalienable rights? There is a sense inside each one of us that has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong action, right and wrong intent. This sense is more than the training wheels society imposes on us, further, it is arguably the source of what society does establish, tested through all time, passed on from generation to generation.

Some of the most well behaved, polite and social people I have ever met, were bushmen - supposedly "uncivilized" people.

 

[editec]

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

In a theoretical way.

IN reality? of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.

 

[dblack]

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

In a theoretical way.

IN reality? of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.

So, if rights aren't protected, even if they're never violated, they don't exist? I guess I'm thinking of a scenario where people voluntarily respect each others rights - without any government involvement. Honestly, this describes the status quo in most communities, most of the time. That doesn't count?

 

[dilloduck]

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

In a theoretical way.

IN reality? of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.

So, if rights aren't protected, even if they're never violated, they don't exist? I guess I'm thinking of a scenario where people voluntarily respect each others rights - without any government involvement. Honestly, this describes the status quo in most communities, most of the time. That doesn't count?

They don't exist because nature doesn't concern itself with rights. Rights are conferred, imposed, bestowed,granted etc . There is no authority to do this act unless one is willing to concede that there is a higher power. I suspect that's the part of the agenda here anyway. Are humans guaranteed to be treated a certain way if there is no God or Government ?

 

[dcraelin]

Have you ever noticed how little government has to do with our general, day-to-day freedom? Let me ask you this - what keeps you from beating your next door neighbor senseless and stealing his stuff? Is it your fear of government, or something else?

It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.

Governments are ideas, does that make them not real?

They are ideas made into reality.

So the idea of government existed before the actuality of government existed?
Where did the idea of government exist before?

I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.

 

[dilloduck]

It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.

They are ideas made into reality.

So the idea of government existed before the actuality of government existed?
Where did the idea of government exist before?

I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.

Pretty much----the first alternative to beating the shit out of each other to get what we wanted/needed.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

In a theoretical way.

IN reality? of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.

What is this reality in which they don't exist? Would you define it? In other words, what do you mean by reality?

 

[dilloduck]

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

In a theoretical way.

IN reality? of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.

What is this reality in which they don't exist? Would you define it? In other words, what do you mean by reality?

I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is a general sense of decency I guess, as I spoke about above.....but government does enforce this.

They are ideas made into reality.

So the idea of government existed before the actuality of government existed?
Where did the idea of government exist before?

I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.

So family or tribe aren't ideas about something?