Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum, just copy and paste your previous arguments.

I prefer to make them work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 did one in three words, no one has refuted it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It makes you wrong

 

[dilloduck]

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

It makes you wrong

I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

I see that you're still putting words in my mouth and arguing against straw men. You are not cognizant of all the facts. You're babbling conventional, commonly understood principles of logic as if they were profound. Things I understand at a glance, while others scratch their heads for hours. Are you kidding me? But you are leveraging them against a ghost, a fantasy that exists nowhere but in your mind.

Don't talk to me about manners when you are violating the rules of this board and claiming that I'm arguing things I am not. You are not allowed to strip quotes from their context. It's against the rules of this board to do so, and the idiocy that you're attributing to me as a result is why it's against the rules.

This is your third warning. Remove the post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: I didn't argue the idea in bold as you claim. You stripped my argument out of its context and have got it completely ass backwards. I have no idea what craziness you spouted after that, as I stopped reading you. But as for animals; indeed, they are natural resources or property. How could they be anything else since they don't have rights as you yourself conceded in your previous post with your talk about lions? We agreed on that point. Now you're spouting the reverse. Since when were they anything else? Do you eat meat? I do. I love a great streak. Thick, juicy, medium rare, please. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Psst. 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.

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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

there you go

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

It makes you wrong

I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?

Psst. dilloduck.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

there you go

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

It makes you wrong

I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?

Days ago, it still stands unchallenged by anyone, even the people who are actually smarter than you who disagreed with me.

 

[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.

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.

Thank you. I was hoping this is what you meant. Basically what you are telling me is that humans have natural rights because you or somebody else said so? Is this a correct assumption?

You dont have a right to life. I can kill you.
You dont have a right to liberty. I can imprison you.
You dont have a right to property private or otherwise. I can take it.

What natural rights do you have without the government there to protect you against someone bigger and stronger than you?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You continue to avoid providing me with the definition of grant and where it says it has to be written. You have no basis at all for such a position. The Supreme Court has protected the granted right to free speech on several occasions. It is stated in the Declaration of Independence as well. The very fact that the Supreme Court has protected the right to free speech should tell you they granted it. The Supreme Court happens to be a body of law. The right only exists because a governing body is there to protect it. If free speech was not a granted right written or otherwise how is the Supreme Court entitled to protect it?

 

[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.

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.

What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence? Thats all I am asking for. Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct? What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You are confusing yourself again. Read the first sentence of your post slowly and deliberately. Be careful of the verbs. They seem to trip you up. I bolded it for you.

I'm not attempting to be smart. Thats a hangup and lack of confidence you seem to have in yourself. I answered your question but you have not answered mine. I dont need to provide you with a latin phrase. I only need to point out the lack of logic in your argument. As usual you run and hide from providing anything because you have nothing.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Im not the one talking about aliens. Its obviously a stalling tactic Quantum. Its ok but just know I know.

 

[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.

I did one in three words, no one has refuted it.

I just did.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence? Thats all I am asking for. Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct? What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.

They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist? Your opinion that they do or some solid evidence? Thats all I am asking for. Surely it is cited somewhere even though nature is unable to write it down correct? What you have not come to grips with is that these rights only exist because the government protects them which is granting them by inference or mentioned in other declarations dealing with the establishment of the country.

They can't prove any natural rights exist. We seen pages of sophistry and bullshit. Ask again and instead of providing you an answer they will refer you back to the pages of sophistry. It's what happens when you deal with dishonest debaters. Waste of time.

I'm sorely disappointed. I really thought I was going to learn something new. I should have known when Quantum starting talking about aliens and MD started writing dissertations. Well you know what they say.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, try to baffle them with BS.”

 

[Foxfyre]

there you go

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

It makes you wrong

I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?

A natural right is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Liberty from the dictates of any other
Living
Breathing
Celebrating
Worshipping
Thinking
Speaking
Hoping
Learning
Believing
Singing
Holding ones own opinions about anything
Expressing ones own opinions about anything
Writing ones own opinions about anything
Enjoying one's own property.
Dressing and conducting oneself as one pleases in his/her own space
Eating what he/she wants that he/she can acquire for himself/herself
Loving
Hating
Caring
Obsessing
Aspiring for one's own goals
Being who and what a person is

All such things are natural/God given/unalienable rights. And yes such rights can be infringed. Yes such rights can be violated. But they are nevertheless, as the Founders defined them, what they are.

And the whole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a nation in which every person's natural/God given/unalienable rights would be recognized and protected so that every person would have the ability to exercise them.

 

[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.

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.

Natural rights are not inherent in any absolute sense. That is to say they do not exist beyond space and time, Earth. They are purely the constructions of the human animal and thus only have meaning within human context. Therefore when humanity ceases, so do "natural rights." This demonstrates natural rights are contingent upon the existence of human organism on planet Earth and have no meaning beyond us. If you call this inherent, fine; but considering inherent to mean "for all time and everywhere, absolutely" it makes not sense.

I said natural rights must be universal but given they must be universal does not mean they exist outside of human language. Natural rights can only make sense if they are universal. But just as you acknowledge natural rights do not exist for animals, they do not exist for people either. Natural rights are useful constructions for understanding how to behave. That does not mean they are real or true. By the same token, using the concept of property to designate something you use does not mean it is property. Rather, it stands to be a convenient though false concept for such designation. You do not own things as a result of use. You do not own things as a result of a piece of paper. Another example is money. Money has no inherent value or meaning but in 21st century it carries a fiat meaning and is very useful. Just because something is useful does not mean it has inherent existence!

Furthermore, crony capitalists are not the problem. People are not the problem per se, it's the system we have erected. It is the institution of private property and ownership that speciously gives people the "right" to deprive other people of rights and necessities (water, food, and life). If we lived on an infinite planet, private property would not be a big deal but since there are limited resources, it is a major ordeal! Just give private property some serious thought, please, before getting pissy.

You're right, your assumptions regarding these topics are without cogent foundation. They are obviously core assumptions of your worldview and and so you refuse to address them by screaming heresy. Why? Because you've never been challenged at your core and it's evident. Just take one example that relates to natural rights.

Please justify to me why you think ownership is real and gives people and corporations the right to deprive other people access to what it is they supposedly "own"--such as vast agriculture, watersheds and energy. What gives them the "right" to have free access and yet charge others? A trivial and meaningless document? Just think for two seconds about this. Just because humanity has erected a particular system does not mean that particular system is justified or makes sense. Indeed, it takes no thought to realize how private property is used as a tool to keep much of the world impoverished. Do you really think Christ would approve of depriving the poor? Are you kidding me? Have you ever read the Bible? I can assure you it denounces such treatment of the poor, I've read it over 3 times cover to cover.

 

[Asclepias]

It makes you wrong

I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?

A natural right is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Liberty from the dictates of any other
Living
Breathing
Celebrating
Worshipping
Thinking
Speaking
Hoping
Learning
Believing
Singing
Holding ones own opinions about anything
Expressing ones own opinions about anything
Writing ones own opinions about anything
Enjoying one's own property.
Dressing and conducting oneself as one pleases in his/her own space
Eating what he/she wants that he/she can acquire for himself/herself
Loving
Hating
Caring
Obsessing
Aspiring for one's own goals
Being who and what a person is

All such things are natural/God given/unalienable rights. And yes such rights can be infringed. Yes such rights can be violated. But they are nevertheless, as the Founders defined them, what they are.

And the whole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a nation in which every person's natural/God given/unalienable rights would be recognized and protected so that every person would have the ability to exercise them.

So basically natural rights exist because someone believed in a unprovable theory?

Does the conflict between the words "natural" and "rights" alarm anyone? I mean how can a right be natural since natural means without human intervention?

 

[Foxfyre]

I certainly erred by the citing the wrong document. I was spot on that the statement existed. Did you come up with an example of a natural right yet ?

A natural right is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other.

Liberty from the dictates of any other
Living
Breathing
Celebrating
Worshipping
Thinking
Speaking
Hoping
Learning
Believing
Singing
Holding ones own opinions about anything
Expressing ones own opinions about anything
Writing ones own opinions about anything
Enjoying one's own property.
Dressing and conducting oneself as one pleases in his/her own space
Eating what he/she wants that he/she can acquire for himself/herself
Loving
Hating
Caring
Obsessing
Aspiring for one's own goals
Being who and what a person is

All such things are natural/God given/unalienable rights. And yes such rights can be infringed. Yes such rights can be violated. But they are nevertheless, as the Founders defined them, what they are.

And the whole purpose of the Constitution was to forge a nation in which every person's natural/God given/unalienable rights would be recognized and protected so that every person would have the ability to exercise them.

So basically natural rights exist because someone believed in a unprovable theory?

Does the conflict between the words "natural" and "rights" alarm anyone? I mean how can a right be natural since natural means without human intervention?

Most of the Founders viewed the rights they recognized as unalienable as God given. Others used the term 'natural'. We can be message board numb nuts and nitpick semantics. Or we can be intelligent and actually consider the concept.

The Founders intended us to have a republic in which no monarch, dictator, pope, or other totalitarian authority could dictate to any person who and what he/she must be and/or how he/she must speak, believe, or live. It was to be a nation in which the people would have their unalienable rights secured from infringement by anarchists, government, and each other, and then would be left alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

I posted a partial but pretty good list of what the Founders considered a 'natural' or 'God given' or 'unalienable' right to be.

Can you argue with it? Or is everything on that list something that a person living in liberty can consider an unalienable right if there is liberty?