Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[RKMBrown]

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.

Treated as such by our federal government.. yes.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Treated as such by our federal government.. yes.

Too bad that over the years our govt has proven that those rights can be easily interpreted and legislated away from us. So much for that inalienable stuff. Maybe that's why people are looking for natural ones.

 

[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

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.

I agree. Human beings can do whatever they please insofar as the thing they please to do is within their power to do it, and, yes, human beings may do any such thing in spite of the existence of any rights. Human beings do that all the time, mostly due to ignorance or fear. We do what we do by nature. We do what we are by nature. Natural law doesn't deny any of these things in the above. These are the very things that it asserts.

So, why do you say poppycock?

Do you believe the above or not?

What is this about my purpose? What is my purpose according to you? Your knowledge regarding my alleged purpose is not in evidence.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

I agree. Human beings can do whatever they please insofar as the thing they please to do is within their power to do it, and, yes, human beings may do any such thing in spite of the existence of any rights. Human beings do that all the time, mostly due to ignorance or fear. We do what we do by nature. We do what we are by nature. Natural law doesn't deny any of these things in the above. These are the very things that it asserts.

So, why do you say poppycock?

Do you believe the above or not?

What is this about my purpose? What is my purpose according to you? Your knowledge regarding my alleged purpose is not in evidence.

sorry--didn't mean to accuse you personally. I'm merely assuming that is what the agenda is in trying to take the next step and call what occurs naturally a " right". Rights are similar to licenses or permission slips. Someone gives them to you. In nature there is no need to have the right to do anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You also used your claim that IBM had the majority of the market they never had to argue that they split off Microsoft/Windows in order to avoid being broken up like Ma Bell. There are two minor problems with that claim.

IBM never had a majority of the market because their PCs were overpriced and easy to copy, hence the abundance of PC clones that flooded the market. FYI, at one time, Radio Shack was actually a major player in the PC market.

The second major problem with that is they never owned Microsoft/Windows.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There is only one economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well I would put my definition of liberty up against yours for consideration by any responsible panel to judge since I in no way justified authoritarianism in any sense other than government securing our rights. But oh well. . . carry on. Not that you wouldn't anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am pretty sure you don't know what he meant.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

What part of the actual essence of the following confused you?

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

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.

_______________________________________________________________________

You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You also used your claim that IBM had the majority of the market they never had to argue that they split off Microsoft/Windows in order to avoid being broken up like Ma Bell. There are two minor problems with that claim.

IBM never had a majority of the market because their PCs were overpriced and easy to copy, hence the abundance of PC clones that flooded the market. FYI, at one time, Radio Shack was actually a major player in the PC market.

The second major problem with that is they never owned Microsoft/Windows.

Lies. I never said a single thing you say I said. Are you entirely incapable of discussion without making up lies in every single sentence?

IBM created the IBM PC market to stave off the feds. The market share I was talking about was for the total computing market, not the PC market which at the time was minuscule. The open standard for the IBM PCs, Microsoft as the OS company, and Intel as the CPU company were chosen to stave off the government splitting IBM up. IBM PCs were easy to copy because IBM published how to copy it, and assisted the other manufacturers in doing so. I'm fully aware that Radio Shack, Commodore, heath kit, and a plethora of others used to sell PC that were based on other architectures.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Well I would put my definition of liberty up against yours for consideration by any responsible panel to judge since I in no way justified authoritarianism in any sense other than government securing our rights. But oh well. . . carry on. Not that you wouldn't anyway.

Giving away our liberty to secure some measure of security. Where have I heard that before?

 

[RKMBrown]

You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.

Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sorry for the length of this post, but it, along with the links provided, sums up everything I've argued in one place, answers your concerns, accordingly, long the way, ties up a few loose ends, and encapsulates all of the fundamental principles and themes of natural law.

While I appreciate the distinction you're making between universal qualities and inherent qualities, and especially your insight regarding the essence of natural law in accordance with the Anglo-American tradition--that's refreshing!--the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision would necessarily be inherently hardwired in order to be universal. In other words, its interesting that you grasp the fact that the mutual obligations of morality are the essence of natural law in the history of its exegesis, though you hold the latter to be a mere corollary in some sense: in nature, I don't know of any universal quality in any given category of thing that isn't also inherent in that category of thing.

Besides, the reason that all humans know that its wrong to murder or to oppress or to steal from others is because they would not have anyone do these things to them. Hence, everyone knows where their rights end and the rights of others begin. Even the sociopath/psychopath knows this. He just doesn't care, as one who's bereft of moral shame and empathy, until these things are perpetrated on him.

Excellent point. It forces me to clarify my own position in a meaningful way and that rarely happens on here. Many thanks.

My reply is that I'm not saying human beings don't have these hard wired. I've said indeed there is a biological component that pervades all culture. You can call it the golden rule but we don't really know much about this topic; though good work has been done by John Mikhail on this subject.

But when you say that we don't know much about the topic, you mean that science has just scratched the surface of a very complex matter. God's word tells us the whole story and divulges the fact that we are created in His image.

Now bear with me. For we need not debate the actualities of the transcendent realm of being to which the immanent realm of being is contingent, as one need not appeal to the existence of God, for example, in order to immediately demonstrate the actuality of natural rights, their character or the fact that they are absolute and inherently universal. That the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are absolute and universal is self-evident, and it is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law proper on which this was nation founded: the classical liberalism extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity’s ethical system of thought.

(See link: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.)

Those who pooh-pooh the observation that America was ultimately founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity simply don't know the history of the development of natural law proper. The tradition of natural law of this nation's founding begins in earnest with Augustine of the Third Century, though it's adumbrations may be traced back to the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century. As handed down to us, its culmination is that which is propounded, principally, by Locke in his Two Treatises of Civil Government and by Sidney in his Discourses Concerning Government in which the ontological justification for natural law proper is predicated on the biblical imperatives concerning the ultimate Origin of natural morality and rights, and those of human conduct and human interaction.

(Never forget, however, that the imperatives of natural morality and natural rights have been recognized and expressed since the dawn of man, albeit, under variously different terms: the stuff of mere semantics, not the stuff of any ontological difference. Given the fact that the substance of these motifs is absolute and universal, this shouldn’t surprise anybody.)

Some think to make much ado over nothing, really, by pointing out that many of the Founders were Deists, followed by the non sequitur of historical ignorance that America, therefore, was not founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity. On the other hand, others carelessly claim with no caveat anywhere in sight that America is a Christian nation, which may be construed to mean something that is false. The sense in which America is a Christian nation goes to the sociopolitical principles of its founding ethos and to the pertinent concerns of liberty exerted against its government. These principles are ultimately derived from scripture; and in accordance with God's perfect will, scripture eschews the supposed divine right of kings and theocracy, as the trappings of such invariably conspire against the exigencies of free will and those of the proper relationship between God and man, or, if you prefer, between the convictions of one's conscience and the behavioral expressions thereof, relative to the prerogatives of free-association and private property as informed by the construct of individual liberty, not by any construct asserted by collectivists.

Hence, we have the essential powers of government—executive, legislative, judicial—distinguished by Augustine, separated via a system of checks and balances by Montesquieu, explicitly limited via the terms of the social contract by Locke, Sidney and others. The latter also entails the necessity of separating church and state, and the peoples' inalienable right of revolt in order to put down the despotic trappings of monarchy and/or theocracy in whatever guise they may persist or arise. Those who claim that the principle of the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution are mistaken. It most certainly is. What they're reacting to is the Jacobins'/Marxists' (that old society of friends and fellow travelers of the "progressive" way) bastardized application of it in case law.

(For example, the leftist Warren Court intentionally turned the principle on its head, effectively making the public education system the state's "church" and making secular humanism it's "religion." See link: Prufrock's Lair: Revisions and Divisions.)

Aside from the affirmation that God (or the Creator in the Declaration of Independence), not the State, is the ultimate Origin and Guarantor of human rights, the sociopolitical principles on which this nation was founded have nothing to do with the mystical aspects of Judeo-Christianity's theology, but with the sociopolitical ramifications of its moral teachings, which both the Christian and the Deist of the time embraced. Hence, so much for the red herring routinely asserted by atheists, in particular, and leftists, in general.

Now, the reason I expound the historical and ideological background of our nation's founding here, as I anticipate the typical objections of ignorance, is to illustrate the reason one must always bear in mind Who the ultimate Benefactor of our natural rights is while demonstrating the cogency of their rational and empirical proofs from nature, sweep away the irrelevancies argued by some that obscure the actualities of the matter, and demonstrate the actual nature of certain, remedial prescriptions that would treat imaginary problems to no avail, but would undermine liberty.


You continue:

So I have no trouble saying these rights exist just like flesh does on our face. But they do not exist outside of our species. The point of this code or natural rights being a portion of biology shows that these rights depend on fundamental recognition of each other as the same and that cannot be done easily without a brain, particularly a human brain. [1] It doesn't ensure we act on them but it sure plays a role. [2] Hence, to say lions afford other lions rights is not intelligible because lions do not have such cognitive capacities. Only when the human brain arrives on the scene do we see natural rights taking form.

Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with these observations. However, a couple of points:

(1) While the fact of the inherent, universal imperatives of natural morality by themselves do not ensure our obeisance due to the exigencies of free will, the person who fails to act on them will not escape the natural repercussions of violating them as they act on him. We have all violated them and felt the sting. Those of us who aren't sociopaths/psychopaths care a great deal about these repercussions or should, for the sake of our own best interests . . . with an empathetic heart for the interests of others.

The imperatives of natural law regarding human conduct and human interaction are God's system of checks and balances woven into the fabric of nature. Ultimately, they are the essence of the defensive counterforce exerted by God against the violations of His inherent rights and the prerogatives of His authority. Whether you believe it to be true or not, violate another's rights and you have violated God's property. Bear in mind that there are rewards to be reaped by those who observe them, too.

(2) And that's why the historically significant proponents of natural law do not formally equate natural rights to mere abilities or talk about the supposed evidence of them in terms of ability. Instead, they are understood to be, respectively, the inherent or natural attributes of sentient beings, as only sentient beings can apprehend them or grant rights of any kind. Humans, for example can and do grant rights; albeit, these are not the natural rights of man, obviously, but the abstract, political rights or the civil rights/protections administered by government. These are the theoretical, social constructs of political science that the relativists on this thread incessantly harp about.

The corollary here is that humans beings should not grant rights to mere animals, as such foolishness undermines the liberty of human beings. Animals are recourses or property.

On the other hand, the civil liberties of the Bill of Rights are the inalienable natural rights of man asserted by the people against the government as translated from the state of nature into the conventions of the state of civil government, and, by the way, the fundamental political rights of the franchise and representation, for example, are the practical means by which the unabrigable civil liberties are peacefully maintained relative to the mutual bonds of the social contract. These are of the first order. The other civil rights/protections are nonessential privileges, though beneficial insofar as they are reasonable.


Again:

So these natural rights are universal among the human species and do not exist outside the human species. [1] Thus, if we died, so does natural rights as we present them. I guess this was the gist of my "they aren't intrinsic" bit. I don't know if this contradicts or supports your belief but it seems axiomatic, really, once we understand natural rights for what they are. A highly useful description in our current age, even a "true" description, [2] but one that does not extend beyond the human species or into the metaphysical realm we so often wish to ascribe such rights and "truths."

(1) Well, yes, as we present them in natural terms, that's true. However, they are spiritually intrinsic as well. But let's concentrate on the level of their being on which we agree, though my approach in this instance may at first blush seem to be counterintuitive to that goal.

Here I wish to further underscore the importance of bearing in mind the Persons by Whom they are ultimately endowed while illustrating their actuality in nature. Given the incontrovertible fact that they are universally inherent to the nature of sentient beings, the fundamental, innate rights of man, obviously, are not derived from government, but neither can they be transferred to another nor even taken by another as some have suggested. They are that absolute.

For this reason, I consistently express their actuality in terms of the mutual obligations of morality with the dichotomic correlates of light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions and initial force-defensive force in mind. (Some may recognize these correlates as expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in some rhetorical flourish or another, but they do not originate with him.) Hence, natural rights are not inalienable in the sense that they cannot (ability) be violated or suppressed; they're inalienable in the sense that they may not (consent) be violated or suppressed without dire consequences, including the use of deadly counterforce. This rendering of the matter entails the understanding that they cannot be transferred to another or taken by another.

As I have observed in other posts, discussing natural rights in terms of ability implies that they are subject to being negated by the whims of other natural agents. But there exists only one Agent Who can terminate them, the same Agent Who endowed them in the first place. Further, given that God is the Author of natural law and the God of nature, given that He is the ultimate Source and Guarantor of human rights: even equating rights to the seemingly benign abilities of thought and expression is foolhardy, for innate rights cease to be rights of any kind at the point where one's rights end and another's rights begin. While one can never violate the natural rights of another human being and, only under relatively rare circumstances, the civil rights of another human being with mere thoughts or expressions, one may quite readily violate the inherent rights of God with one's thoughts and expressions. We humans do it all the time.

(2) We are not alone, and just as the sentient creatures of nature precede and command the trappings of government, wisely or unwisely, God precedes and commands the very existence of nature itself, which is utterly contingent to His power and authority. A human being, or, for that matter, any natural entity, sentient or inanimate, may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that does not transfer my rights to another. A natural entity may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that takes neither my life nor my rights away. Ultimately, I'm an eternal being comprised of a spiritual substance. My life and my rights stay with me wherever I go.

No human being in the natural realm can kill my body, physically oppress me or steal my property, except God allow it; and should He allow it, now argued strictly in the terms of nature as promised, my life is not transferred to another, my basic liberties (commonly, though informally in all but the constitutional language of civil liberties, referred to as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement, which are not freedoms proper, but the inherently fundamental attributes/liberties of sentient beings) remain intact via my rational faculties, and the nonnegotiable asset of my property is me, my own self.

None of the natural rights of man are derived from government; they cannot be transferred to another or taken away by another.

(The Explicit Natural Rights of Man: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367.)

As for criminals, killed or incarcerated for perpetrating serious transgressions against an individual or the body politic, their just due is exacted on them via the defensive counterforce of the same, respectively. But as I've shown, even that does not extinguish their natural rights, though it does severely limit their expression. Also, in many states, they may never be able to keep and bear arms again, which is merely a continuation of the same instance of justice meted out as a result of their violation(s) of natural law. Repercussions. But no one ever loses one's right of self-defense.

In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or the legitimate political/civil rights of others.


Again:

Many harp on natural rights as the only way to discuss relations between human beings but it's fundamentally skewed, forgoing other important relations, namely our responsibilities if we are to maintain a decent planet and society. I see "rights" being used for ill as often as good. [1] Moreover I hardly consider rights as important to my understanding of ethics and morality because they come from aligning yourself with self-evident and intuitive principles--one need not understand the concept natural rights in order to do this--and the doing is the only important part. Rights are abstractions of action and are thus subject to misconstrual or worse, misapplication. [2] I don't advocate the getting rid of natural rights but we certainly need to expand it to make sense: to include economic rights.

(1) But one need not be a scholar of natural law in order to understand its fundamental realities: everybody knows it's wrong to murder another, to oppress another or to steal from another, if for no other reason but the fact that nobody would that anybody else do any of these things to them. There's nothing especially abstract about that, and the only sense in which natural rights are significantly abstract goes to their expression. Sure. But the expression of these rights is effortless for a sentient being, for the essence of their expression goes to what a sentient being is and what a sentient being does by its very nature.

(2) Now, finally, your thought regarding economic rights and the like: what you're asserting constitutes the violation of natural rights.

Marxist Sociopolitical and Economic Theory 101.

We already have more than enough of that going on right now—thank you very much, but no thank you—and the crony capitalism thereof is strangling the life blood out of small business interests and the working poor, just for starters. . . .

What your prescribing is the very cause of the ills and depredations you're complaining about, including your concerns about the environment. Repercussions. In fact, what you're prescribing is a futile attempt to ameliorate the deprivations caused by the very same—a vicious cycle of envy, avarice, fear, theft, sloth, dependency . . . ad nauseam; links in the growing chain of the tyranny that binds us, forged by the peoples' lack of self-control and self-provision. See my signature. The endless parade of bread and circuses . . . well, until the money runs out. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, a.k.a., spiraling spending and debt. Wealth redistribution, which only serves to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, as it effects an overall decline in the wealth of the nation as a whole. Not at all what progressives predict according to the zero-sum gain fantasy. Lose is the word of the day!

After labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and after all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed out in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! —Karl Marx

Yeehaw!

The former Soviet Union, the communist Republic of China under Moa, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under that line of congenital psychopaths, Cuba under Castro (Isn't he dead yet?), Venezuela under Chavez. . . .

Here's my motto for Marx: From thieves according to their sins, to each according to his sweat.

 

[Asclepias]

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 ?

I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.

Life is not a right. It is a miracle of nature.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.

Life is not a right. Someone can kill you.

And?

 

[Asclepias]

I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.

Life is not a right. Someone can kill you.

And?

And governments dont give birth to humans.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

Karma may be true but humans do not have the cognitive capacity to produce sufficient evidence for rational belief in karma. So I stand by the assertion and logical premise that karma is magic/supernatural in the sense that it may be true we just don't have sufficient evidence like we do with natural selection.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I agree. Human beings can do whatever they please insofar as the thing they please to do is within their power to do it, and, yes, human beings may do any such thing in spite of the existence of any rights. Human beings do that all the time, mostly due to ignorance or fear. We do what we do by nature. We do what we are by nature. Natural law doesn't deny any of these things in the above. These are the very things that it asserts.

So, why do you say poppycock?

Do you believe the above or not?

What is this about my purpose? What is my purpose according to you? Your knowledge regarding my alleged purpose is not in evidence.

sorry--didn't mean to accuse you personally. I'm merely assuming that is what the agenda is in trying to take the next step and call what occurs naturally a " right". Rights are similar to licenses or permission slips. Someone gives them to you. In nature there is no need to have the right to do anything.

Actually, a handful of us have addressed the matter from top to bottom. No need to move on to anything new. It's all been said and done already. In the above you alleged that natural law and the obvious realities of things were incongruent. How's that? We're talking about natural law, not civil law. The latter is the stuff of rights akin to licenses and such.

Natural rights are. Period. Correct. You don't have to do anything to have them, but be born. They are the stuff of the inherent attributes and subsequent expressions of sentient beings. They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a permission slip, as it were, to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.