Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Morality makes it sound so religious tho.

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

Stop it. I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.

No. There is no we here. There is only you relativists making baby talk. You're not looking for anything.

All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.

And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk: There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?

As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished. Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic. The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever. Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.

Nothing you say makes any sense at all. It's sheer irrationalism.

You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy. Let me help you: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

poppycock---humans are animals----we do what we do regardless of any so called rights involved. You are simply trying to re label human behavior to suit your purpose.

 

[Foxfyre]

After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.

But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'. I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept. In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.

"Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same. Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.

In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do. Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees. Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them. Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her. To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.

Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be. And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.

You are tying your self up in knots trying to recursively define liberty and natural rights.

It's not that hard.

lib·er·ty:
1. the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
(Websters)

What liberty is not:
The liberty to take someone's liberty away from them.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not tying myself up in knots at all. I am doing my damndest however, to discuss the obvious dichotomy that exists within the concept.

Even your Webster definition followed by your opinion of what liberty is not immediately falls within that dichotomy. How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans. The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended. However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in. Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.

 

[dilloduck]

After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.

But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'. I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept. In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.

"Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same. Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.

In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do. Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees. Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them. Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her. To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.

Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be. And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.

You are tying your self up in knots trying to recursively define liberty and natural rights.

It's not that hard.

lib·er·ty:
1. the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
(Websters)

What liberty is not:
The liberty to take someone's liberty away from them.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not tying myself up in knots at all. I am doing my damndest however, to discuss the obvious dichotomy that exists within the concept.

Even your Webster definition followed by your opinion of what liberty is not immediately falls within that dichotomy. How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans. The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended. However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in. Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.

In simpler terms we have natural rights or we don't but what occurs in society is that a decision is made as to which behaviors are appropriate and which are to be punished. Whether they are natural or not is of no consequence.

 

[RKMBrown]

How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans. The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended. However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in. Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.

Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts. They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever. They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away. IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.

To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?" The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.

IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood. To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous. It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.

 

[dilloduck]

How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans. The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended. However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in. Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.

Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts. They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever. They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away. IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.

To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?" The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.

IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood. To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous. It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.

Therefore liberty in NOT an inalienable right but one that is entirely dependent on following the laws issued by the government.

 

[gnarlylove]

Survival of the fittest ?

We better stop right there.
These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.

( you forgot the law of gravity )

Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.

karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.

So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.

I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Morality makes it sound so religious tho.

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

Stop it. I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.

No. There is no we here. There is only you relativists making baby talk. You're not looking for anything.

All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.

And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk: There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?

As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished. Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic. The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever. Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.

Nothing you say makes any sense at all. It's sheer irrationalism.

You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy. Let me help you: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Have you read Richard Rorty? Donald Davidson? They seem to offer extremely persuasive accounts of relativism, and stick to it without conflating their own proposition of relativism. It's quite refreshing. Maybe you could check out the intro or first 8 pages of Irony Contingency and Solidarity by Rorty on google books. Having not followed your argument, I apologize if I'm mistaken on the gist of this post.

 

[dilloduck]

Survival of the fittest ?

We better stop right there.
These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.

( you forgot the law of gravity )

Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.

karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.

So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.

I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.

Our mission now is to decide which of those biological and intuitive notions should be encouraged and nurtured and which ones should sit in the back of the bus.

damn----I said that word "should" again.

 

[Asclepias]

Survival of the fittest ?

We better stop right there.
These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.

( you forgot the law of gravity )

Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.

karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.

So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.

I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.

I disagree that karma is magic. Its is a very real phenomenon. Inherently it is neutral and only appears to be good or bad based on perspective. I do agree with the rest of your post though. What energy you put out into the world invariably returns to you. We know thought is a physical action that causes electrical signals and frequencies to be produced. Thats why you are able to detect a genuine smile in a persons voice over the phone. You attract what you are or even more specifically what you send out. Is that a right? The dictionary says no but its the closest thing we have to it.

 

[dilloduck]

Survival of the fittest ?

We better stop right there.
These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.

( you forgot the law of gravity )

Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.

karma is magic, I agree. But I'm confused on this one. While it's obviously not true that doing bad things inevitably leads to bad things happening in return (same goes for good) I have found that there are unexplainable phenomena that point towards the good attracting the good. There is undoubtedly a formless energy that pervades existence that we can call God, Nature, Tao or Mother of the Universe but from this we derive our being. Hence, it's fair to say we intuitively know the good as a result of deriving our being from this wholly good source. When something good starts, it tends to roll. Indeed, human history and the moral arc of the universe appears clearly to bend towards justice and the good but it is awfully slow and sometimes appears to go in reverse.

So Karma may be bunk but there is something to the good that impels us to recognize it and perhaps act in accord with it.

I tie this into natural rights by saying we derive biological and intuitive notions from this Mother, as do all living creatures and existence. There's no reason to think human beings understand 1/10 of 1% of how the world really is. Maybe I just typed a bunch of nonsense.

I disagree that karma is magic. Its is a very real phenomenon. Inherently it is neutral and only appears to be good or bad based on perspective. I do agree with the rest of your post though. What energy you put out into the world invariably returns to you. We know thought is a physical action that causes electrical signals and frequencies to be produced. Thats why you are able to detect a genuine smile in a persons voice over the phone. You attract what you are or even more specifically what you send out. Is that a right? The dictionary says no but its the closest thing we have to it.

Attributing some good stroke of luck that happens to you in the present to something good that you did in the past is fantasy. A coincidence that people love to give significance to.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Baloney. Why don't you just argue how big bigger is. Or how fair fairness is. Natural rights have nothing to do with morality of nature, mother nature, or any other such nonsensical whimsical blathering.

So the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, for example, on which this nation was founded, by the way, is not the morality of human conduct, human interaction and human rights as derived from nature?

That's your contention?

Well, then, if you know what natural law and the natural rights thereof are not in history, you must know what they are in history, right?

What are they in history?

By all means, tell us. Teach us. Explain it to us.

What are you getting so bent out of shape for?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Morality makes it sound so religious tho.

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

Stop it. I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.

No. There is no we here. There is only you relativists making baby talk. You're not looking for anything.

All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.

And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk: There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?

As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished. Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic. The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever. Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.

Nothing you say makes any sense at all. It's sheer irrationalism.

You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy. Let me help you: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Have you read Richard Rorty? Donald Davidson? They seem to offer extremely persuasive accounts of relativism, and stick to it without conflating their own proposition of relativism. It's quite refreshing. Maybe you could check out the intro or first 8 pages of Irony Contingency and Solidarity by Rorty on google books. Having not followed your argument, I apologize if I'm mistaken on the gist of this post.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Sallow]

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?

They are more than ideas. They exist.

Not really.

They are another extension of how we humans view the world.

 

[gnarlylove]

It's clear that whatever "should" be encouraged must have a universal quality. Currently is it not being applied universally. Exceptions, like the elites, have ran the show for too long. We need to stand firmly against this mockery of justice and the good. This is why employ terms like natural rights, because supposedly all people should have the right to whatever we define as rights, like Bin Laden deserved a trial, as do all people accused of any crime. The Nuremberg trail clearly states this.

So debating about what these rights are is a matter of viewing all people as people. unfortunately the world evidently treats blacks, muslims, minorities and "terrorists" as lesser peoples or not people at all with no rights. This is an abomination of rights and justice yet it seems axiomatic among the ruling elite--precisely those who determine what rights are and who gets them! Thus natural rights are fictions because they are not applied universally.

 

[RKMBrown]

How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans. The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended. However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in. Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.

Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts. They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever. They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away. IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.

To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?" The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.

IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood. To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous. It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.

Therefore liberty in NOT an inalienable right but one that is entirely dependent on following the laws issued by the government.

I suppose one could argue that people have taken liberty with the use of the adjective inalienable.

 

[dilloduck]

So family or tribe aren't ideas about something?

They are more than ideas. They exist.

Not really.

They are another extension of how we humans view the world.

LOL tribes, families, clans etc do not exist ? This I gotta hear

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Baloney. Why don't you just argue how big bigger is. Or how fair fairness is. Natural rights have nothing to do with morality of nature, mother nature, or any other such nonsensical whimsical blathering.

So the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism, for example, on which this nation was founded, by the way, is not the morality of human conduct, human interaction and human rights as derived from nature?

That's your contention?

Well, then, if you know what natural law and the natural rights thereof are not in history, you must know what they are in history, right?

What are they in history?

By all means, tell us. Teach us. Explain it to us.

What are you getting so bent out of shape for?

What part of the whimsical blathering confused you? Did politicians and lawmakers wax romantic with sweeping self-proclaimed statements of support by a broad swath of history? Yes.

The formers had the right idea. Leave the blathering and sweeping proclamations of rights out of the document but for prefatory clauses, and instead list the shit government can't do to us. Funny how they called it the bill of rights, then proceeded to write a list of restrictions on government to take away rights. Not funny that the government then proceeded to render all prior amendments moot in writing the 14th due process clause then forcing the south to agree under threat of death.

 

[Foxfyre]

How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans. The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended. However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in. Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.

Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts. They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever. They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away. IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.

To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?" The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.

IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood. To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous. It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.

Liberty, as one person interprets it, can indeed include the ability to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim. Look at rioters who believe they are being virtuous when they destroy property, threaten or assault people, become violent etc. because in their view they are supporting or promoting some virtuous concept or protesting some vile principle or act. Many interpret liberty as forbidding a person from consuming addictive drugs or alcohol or from engaging in gambling or prostitution because in their view, they are righteous and noble to save another person from his own destructive choices. The politically correct police applauded protests and pickets and petitions to punish Chick-fil-a or Duck Dynasty star or a others for a politically incorrect point of view, etc.

All these can and have been promoted as concepts of 'liberty', even believing the Constitution protects and condones such activities. The 'liberty' to force others to conform to what is good, and right, and virtuous.

This goes far beyond society choosing to prevent or punish those who violate the unalienable rights- of others; i.e. arresting and/or incarcerating thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

That is NOT the liberty embodied in unalienable/natural/God given rights as the Founders saw that, however. True liberty allows somebody to be good or bad, virtuous or immoral, religious or non religious, tolerant of all or bigoted or racist or some other -ist, just so long as that is not forced upon any other.

 

[dilloduck]

Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts. They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever. They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away. IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.

To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?" The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.

IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood. To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous. It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.

Therefore liberty in NOT an inalienable right but one that is entirely dependent on following the laws issued by the government.

I suppose one could argue that people have taken liberty with the use of the adjective inalienable.

I suspect that Locke et al meant that certain rights should be treated as such.

 

[RKMBrown]

How can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?

In its simplest terms, the Founder's saw natural rights as what comes naturally to all creatures, including us humans. The ability to go with our instincts as God created us, as it were, or as nature intended. However, because our natural instincts might extend to that of the lower animals leading to the survival of the fittest that often circumvents 'natural rights' of the weaker and less capable, that is where the role of government comes in. Our 'natural rights' must not be violated by government, but government can be ordered to prevent us from violating somebody else's 'natural rights'.

Authoritarians have a hard time distinguishing violent acts from non-violent acts. They see the word act and think it means any act whatsoever. They see the word liberty and confuse that with acts to take liberty away. IOW authoritarians just don't believe in the concept of liberty, and are completely incapable of even considering how one might live without using violent acts to take away the rights of others.

To your question, "how can there be liberty to do what one pleases if what one pleases is to deny liberty or any other 'natural rights' to another?" The answer is simple, liberty is not the liberty to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim.

IOW It's ok to have a law against murder, and a rule stopping our government from restricting our liberty. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Liberty is not a right to murder someone in cold blood. To pretend liberty requires the right to murder someone is more than ridiculous. It is nothing more than a deflection by Authoritarians who desire to deny others liberty.

Liberty, as one person interprets it, can indeed include the ability to do harm, to commit violent acts, to take people's liberty away from them on a whim. No. Liberty is not open for interpretation.

Look at rioters who believe they are being virtuous when they destroy property, threaten or assault people, become violent etc. because in their view they are supporting or promoting some virtuous concept or protesting some vile principle or act. No. Those things are not virtuous, they are the opposite of virtuous. While your violent acts on others may satiate your desire for revenge, these are not virtuous acts. Defensible perhaps but not virtuous.

Many interpret liberty as forbidding a person from consuming addictive drugs or alcohol or from engaging in gambling or prostitution because in their view, they are righteous and noble to save another person from his own destructive choices. No. That's not liberty that's authority. Again you appear to be deflecting for authoritarian desires to take away liberty. Authority to take away liberty is not liberty.

The politically correct police applauded protests and pickets and petitions to punish Chick-fil-a or Duck Dynasty star or a others for a politically incorrect point of view, etc.And it would be their liberty to do so.

All these can and have been promoted as concepts of 'liberty', even believing the Constitution protects and condones such activities.

The 'liberty' to force others to conform to what is good, and right, and virtuous. No. No. No. Liberty is not liberty to force. That is a gross distortion used by authoritarians to take liberty away. You are justifying your means based on your desire to reach some end that you believe to be good.

This goes far beyond society choosing to prevent or punish those who violate the unalienable rights- of others; i.e. arresting and/or incarcerating thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

That is NOT the liberty embodied in unalienable/natural/God given rights as the Founders saw that, however. True liberty allows somebody to be good or bad, virtuous or immoral, religious or non religious, tolerant of all or bigoted or racist or some other -ist, just so long as that is not forced upon any other.

Your definition of True liberty and use of the term is just more deflection for the authoritarians who justify their use of force as a means to an end.