Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[M.D. Rawlings]

[

the immanent realm of being is contingent...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

It is not self-evident by any means. Contingency implies relativism. Conditional circumstances imply the subjective. There is no reason to think human animals have access to absolute capacities. By our very nature we are subject in time and space. Therefore we cannot make declarations that transcend time and space with any meaning or weight.

However, universality has definite meaning. When we find certain actions or moral behaviors transcend culture and geography, then we call it universal. This is by no means absolute. It seems like you're using them interchangeably and I want to appeal to your sensible nature by ceasing such a faux-pas. William Lane Craig is a sharp defender of this essential demarcation. Although it seems semantical, words have meanings and we need to stick to them in argumentative prose.

gnarlylove, you've got my statement about the immanent realm of being completely divorced from its context.

I've never argued anything as stupid as what you’re alleging in my life.

And contingency does not imply relativism in any way, shape or form, when the entity that is contingent is substantiated by an entity that is not contingent!

The term contingent as it appears in the entire context has nothing to do with "the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision".


The issue of contingency in my post went to the relationship between the immanent realm of being and the transcendent realm of being, before you struck the latter from the context. And besides there's a period after that sentence. The sentence and the thought that follows is different.

Further, I never claimed that "the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision" were demonstrably absolute . . . wait for it . . . beyond human consciousness from any objective perspective at all.

Once again, I've never argued anything as stupid as what you're alleging in my life.

In fact, in the link I provided just below the paragraph we're discussing, I emphatically stated that the relativist could be right, objectively speaking, though his position, given the absolute laws of logic, is held as a matter of dogma, not logic.

In short, you're arguing against an idea I never asserted.

Hence, I'm not using the terms absolute and universal interchangeably at all. I introduced an entirely new idea that has absolutely nothing to do with the previous idea or with what you're talking about now.

Or are you actually talking about the imperatives of natural law? Not clear is it? That's why one doesn't willy-nilly strike the context of things.

And in any event, if that's what you're referring to, as I can only guess, I never argued that they were absolute in the sense that you're talking about either!






Look, you need to delete your post and start all over. This is a complete mess. Nothing in the first part of your post reflects the actual contents of mine. Nothing! Every single point you make is ass backwards. I'm not reading the rest. Fix this!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically. A risibly stupid claim.

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.

OP? I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.

No. Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:

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.

Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.

how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.

Quantum always does this when he starts writing faster than he can think. Its a stall tactic.

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.

Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically. A risibly stupid claim.

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.

OP? I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.

No. Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:

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.

Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.

how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.

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.

Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically. A risibly stupid claim.

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension, you dope, is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.

OP? I moved on from the elemental concerns of the OP pages ago.

No. Let's look at your stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:

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.

Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Quantum, just copy and paste your previous arguments.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

One of you asked how much property does one have a natural right to have.

That question has already been answered in this thread, hasn't it? What you're actually doing here is implying that it can't be answered; or more to the point, as you just said in the above, you're implying that none of the natural rights of man can be identified or defined. Well, that's bull too, isn't it?

I just identified one of them, and your follow up question necessarily concedes the fact of my answer. The first article of private property, the nonnegotiable asset of one's private property, is one's own self. Duh. What the hell are you talking about? Everybody knows that; indeed, everybody who has ever lived knows that. You know that. That is precisely what is meant by private property. The first fact as well as the first principle of private property is that each man owns his own self and his own aspirations. The fact that everyman requires certain basic things to survive goes to the private property associated with the immediate material needs of a sentient being's existence: food, shelter, clothing and the means to acquire them, beginning with his very own mental and physical faculties of ingenuity and movement. Everything that has ever been owned by human beings in history falls under one of those three categories.

No mystery there.

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right to be secure in one's life, in one's fundamental liberties and in one's private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

There's nothing mysterious about any of that.

As to their parameters, which is all you're really asking in the above: one's rights end where another's begin. Even sociopaths know that. Why redundantly go through them one at a time. That natural law applies universally, and every swingin' Dick and Jane that has ever lived, including you, knows where their rights end and where those of others' begin.

The rest is mere semantics, namely, your semantics, dancing around and avoiding the actual facts of human conduct and human interaction in the real world.

 

[Asclepias]

Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences? It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences? It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.

I just told you what every one of them are in three sentences. You wanted just one. Not only did I give you all three categories of the natural rights of man in just three sentences, I even included the three fundamental liberties of the second category of natural rights, and a brief history concerning the previous iterations of the natural rights of man. Bonus!

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thus having restricted the federal government from restricting said free speech the the former's of this nation did through exclusion grant to the people said right to said free speech.

Said another way, show me where they didn't ensure that we are granted said free speech. (Ok sans using due process from the 14th.)

Creatiing legal protection for a right is not a grant of that right; the right necessarily exists independent of that legal protection.

Negative. It's the only thing holding back this repressive government.

The protection afforded to a right? Correct.
But, to protect a right, it must first exist. Affording protection to a right does not create, confer or grant that right, it simply protects it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.

I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.

Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.

Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.

The constitution claims no such thing.
Disagree?
Cite the text.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.

Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.

But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.

You are asking for something that has no bearing. Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written.

You continue to choose to be wrong.
There is no sound basis for your position that our government can grant anything, much less a right, without a legal mechamism that does so. Fact of the matter is, ther is no body of law anywhere in our government that grants anyone the right to free speech, and so there is no way to soundly argue that said right was granted to us by the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.

Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

Side note:
However true this may be, it in no way supports the idea that the rights in question were granted by the government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one. I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.

Says he who believes the government granted us the right to free speech, but cannot provide a citation where the government grants us that right-- and thinks that's OK because he thinks he doesn't have to.
:roll:

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can someone provide an example of a natural right in less than 3 sentences? It should be a simple exercise. When you make it more complex than necessary it lets me know you have confused yourself.

The right to life.
The right to liberty.
The right to property.

All of these rights are protected by the constitution, none of these rights are granted by the government, all of these rights, by the fatc that they are protected by the constitution and were not grante dby the government necessitate that they pre-exist the government.

There ya go.

 

[gnarlylove]

1. MD, you said Lockean principles are worthwhile. I said they are not.

2. You said humans have absolute capacity to understand something beyond time and space (absolute specifically means something that goes beyond condition to apply universally and eternally). I argued from many angles why this is not possible for humans.

Are you kidding me about contingency? You literally admit the human being is not self-sufficient without external input, namely from an absolute source, and you still consider the contingent human being itself to understand absolute declarations. Absolute means total self-sufficiency, complete, not dependent. Your sentences regarding this matter are fanciful delusions. They make literally no sense. A human being that is contingent is by definition not absolute, not self contained, not self sufficient, not complete.

3. You said animals are property. I said this was completely false and argued from two angles why that is utterly false.

4. You identified Christianity as your belief system and I spent many paragraphs asking you valid questions about how you think private property is justified? Notice the source pf private property isn't in Jesus or the Bible yet you consider it as Christian as Paul's letters. How implausible.

Your foul response was to raise your voice by increasing fonts, a sincerely gaudy move. Here I thought you had some brains but instead you don't reply to my 4 main issues, instead, you tell me to go fuck myself basically and re-write to your liking. How pitiful from someone who uses such prose to have such a shy sense of introspection. I'd urge you to read the reply as I did yours respectfully. I don't think you are a bad person in any way so I don't get why you are so fucking upset. You have consistenly tried to use reason but on those issues you shut down. I guess a good Christian shuts down when they have genuine challenges. I was a Christian just like you once so I'd know, whether you admit to yourself or not. Or prove me wrong but respectfully replying. I'm not stupid, you made these remarks and I responded to them:

You called animals property, you think absolutes are understood by subjects, you unquestioningly accept private property despite its extreme evils of depravity of the poor, and you asserted you were a Christian.

Either you made those claims and my post remains highly relevant or you did not make those claims in which case I am wrong and my post is irrelevant. But we know the facts, you don't want to face them. Hopefully you will return to this at a later date when you are more mature. I mean how silly is it to say re-write something because I don't like how it makes me feel. The fact is if you believe those 4 things I mentioned, you clearly have never considered what the hell they mean because their implications are radical and anti-Christ-like. Again, be mature and assess my claims or shy away and call me names. Your choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.

how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.

I posted the definition. Are you claiming that I made it up? If so, feel free to post the real definition.

 

[dilloduck]

I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.

Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.

Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.

The constitution claims no such thing.
Disagree?
Cite the text.

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.

there you go

LOL omg---the Declaration not the Constitution-----well ok----that makes everything TOTALLY different

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example. The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.

I haven't asked you to repeat yourself, I have demanded that you prove your point. You seem to think, just like everyone else who insists that natural rights do not exist, that all you have to do is assert that you are right.

Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one. I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.

The record says that I am asking you to repeat yourself because I refuse to repeat myself?

If you are half as smart as you think you are you will not only be able to refute my examples, you will be able to find them by searching for a simple Latin phrase. If, on the other hand, you aren't even as smart as I think you are, you won't even be able to find them. Feel free to prove me wrong, or actually make my point for me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.

Is that because you read all the posts in this thread, or is it because you think aliens built the pyramids?

I know when I'm in your head Quantum. You start trying claim things you cant prove and attribute them to me. So far you are the only one that believes aliens built the pyramids. Stop stalling and give me an example of a natural or unalienable right.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You already conceded that natural rights exist, that they are inherent and universal. Faced with the cogency of the argument I asserted from first principles, which you never saw coming, you were compelled to concede the point that all of the objections on this board by the naysayers were mere semantics. Recall?

I can quote you, but how about you explain to us why you're reversing yourself here. Did you forget and revert back to what I showed to be a fallacious belief?

Further, the elites you're complaining about are statists and crony capitalists. And such despise the natural rights of man; they do not tout them at all. You're not making a lick of sense anymore. Governments can't assert/grant natural rights. That's absurd. Indeed, you're contradicting yourself again. You conceded what they are. You conceded what their nature is. How could the government assert the things we talked about against the people? Natural rights can only be asserted against the government. What governments assert are civil rights/protections, including those economic rights you go on about . . . on behalf of some against the interests of others. And invariably it is the powerful that control how these so-called rights are wielded.

Why can't you see that? Such power is never about the stated purpose.

And it is folks like you who encourage the government to grab this kind of power.

BTW, you need to delete that post of yours and start over. It's a mess. I can't possibly discuss it with you in that kind of shape. I'd have to go through it and correct all your errors and misapprehensions first. Futile.

Why don't you take a piece of it at a time and make sure you understand what I'm actually saying first.

What happened there? It's god awful.

You've got me making arguments that are clearly false, stupid, retarded, the stuff of a moron, arguments that I have never made in my entire life.

Dude.

Deal with the entire context, and don't strip things out, making it read something it's not.