Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[gnarlylove]

MD, assessing claims you did not make should not make you threaten me to remove my post. Why is something you did not say so threatening? It makes no sense.

If you really believe you don't think private property is real, come out and say it. If you do not believe in Christianity, tell me. If you do not accept Locke's principles, tell me. Instead you have continually made assertions that I made claims that you did not make. If you really believe that, show me. Stop pussy footing around and threatening my by cogently assessing where I went wrong. So far you've relied on personal attacks and gaudy fonts.

I am completely open to deleting the post and would do it in a heartbeat with good reason. But absent any evidence, I have no reason to. If you think there are good reasons, quote me and explain why you are not making those claims.

Instead 3 times you have made gaudy personal attacks with gaudy font. This leads me to think you are a coward instead of a sincere intellectual. Please prove me wrong, I am 100% open to it. But if you think threats and assertions have any weight, then you are a poser. Assertions must be backed up with evidence. I have seen no evidence why my arguments do not reflect your position.

Regarding animals, they have equal rights as we do. In other words, natural rights don't exist for people and don't exist for animals. Thus they are equal. I never even hinted that animals are property. I quoted a biologist who said humans are no better than animals. But don't take my word for it. Read your own holy book. Tell me where it says animals are property. It doesn't because property was not a concept until the 16th century. We are suppose to take care of animals just like humans according to the holy scripture. Thus your concept that animals are property to be distributed does not come from biology, does not come from the bible, so where are you getting it?

 

[Asclepias]

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 both anarchists and government, 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?

Its hard to argue without addressing semantics. The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give. All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights. Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 both anarchists and government, 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?

Its hard to argue without addressing semantics. The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give. All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights. Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.

But this is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a concept. Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did. Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.

So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.

And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.

The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.

 

[Asclepias]

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 both anarchists and government, 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?

Its hard to argue without addressing semantics. The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give. All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights. Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.

But this is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a concept. Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did. Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.

So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.

And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.

The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.

I understand what you are saying. Its is just another example of how much thought went into this. My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct. Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist? It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people. How do you prove something like that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Its hard to argue without addressing semantics. The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give. All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights. Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.

But this is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a concept. Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did. Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.

So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.

And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.

The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.

I understand what you are saying. Its is just another example of how much thought went into this. My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct. Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist? It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people. How do you prove something like that?

Does air exist? Sunshine? Do you think? Do you speak? Do you hope? Do you believe? Do you hate? Do you rejoice? Do you take pleasure in work or play or achieving goals? Do you value life? Do you value liberty that allows you to be whomever and whatever you choose to be? That is the proof that natural rights exist. Many papal bulls and other government decrees have violated the natural rights of the people. Bad people would deny other people their rights. That is what the Constitution was intended to correct--a government that would recognize that people possess unalienable rights and that would not presume to assign rights to the people but would protect their rights that already existed.

 

[Asclepias]

But this is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a concept. Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did. Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.

So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.

And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.

The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.

I understand what you are saying. Its is just another example of how much thought went into this. My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct. Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist? It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people. How do you prove something like that?

Does air exist? Sunshine? Do you think? Do you speak? Do you hope? Do you believe? Do you hate? Do you rejoice? Do you take pleasure in work or play or achieving goals? Do you value life? Do you value liberty that allows you to be whomever and whatever you choose to be? That is the proof that natural rights exist. Many papal bulls and other government decrees have violated the natural rights of the people. Bad people would deny other people their rights. That is what the Constitution was intended to correct--a government that would recognize that people possess unalienable rights and that would not presume to assign rights to the people but would protect their rights that already existed.

I don't want you to think I believe it was a bad concept so using the Dum Diversas was not the best example. i do all of those things and yes I agree these things exist. However, it seems as if natural rights exist solely because we have faith they exist which is a manmade construct. Is this what you are trying to convey?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Natural rights are nothing more than rights that certain people think are effectively non-negotiable when a government is set up and given power over the people.

The government must secure those rights, and must not deny them.

It's all theoretical.

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand what you are saying. Its is just another example of how much thought went into this. My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct. Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist? It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people. How do you prove something like that?

Does air exist? Sunshine? Do you think? Do you speak? Do you hope? Do you believe? Do you hate? Do you rejoice? Do you take pleasure in work or play or achieving goals? Do you value life? Do you value liberty that allows you to be whomever and whatever you choose to be? That is the proof that natural rights exist. Many papal bulls and other government decrees have violated the natural rights of the people. Bad people would deny other people their rights. That is what the Constitution was intended to correct--a government that would recognize that people possess unalienable rights and that would not presume to assign rights to the people but would protect their rights that already existed.

I don't want you to think I believe it was a bad concept so using the Dum Diversas was not the best example. i do all of those things and yes I agree these things exist. However, it seems as if natural rights exist solely because we have faith they exist which is a manmade construct. Is this what you are trying to convey?

It isn't a matter of belief. It is a reality. They don't exist because somebody thought them up or believes in them. If you are forbidden to think, believe, hope, understand, yearn for, would these things cease to exist? If you didn't believe in thought, hope, understanding etc., would those things cease to exist? They exist because they exist and we had nothing to do with that.

Liberty is to be able to utilize all that exists that requires no contribution or participation by any other unless the other willingly consents to such contribution or participation. That is what unalienable rights are. And that is what the Constitution was intended to recognize, promote, and defend.

 

[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 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?

As usual, you are confused, and wrong. The fact that people die, even at the hands of others, is not ipso facto evidence that the right to life does not exist. You really should go back and read the thread so you don't repeat the same mistakes other people have made. Alternately, you could arrogantly presume that you are the smartest person ever and pretend that all of your arguments are original.

 

[dilloduck]

Natural rights are nothing more than rights that certain people think are effectively non-negotiable when a government is set up and given power over the people.

The government must secure those rights, and must not deny them.

It's all theoretical.

Yes---chosen and prioritized by a few elite who have decided that they just know better.

 

[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.

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.

I was going to mock your position by repeating your post and changing a few words to show how you are arguing in a circle, but you would have missed the point in its entirety, so I will simply ask you what evidence you use to base your position that rights exist without government on. Keep in mind that I can show you arguing that slavery is wrong, which is an absurd position to take for anyone who insists that no one has any rights unless they are granted by the government. If no one actually has rights, then there is no logical, or moral, basis to ever fight for them, yet you insist that we should actually fight against people that want to take away our non existent rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

Using one illustration--and PLEASE do not use this as license to rehash the whole issue--

. . . .let's look at the CEO of Chick-fil-a. He expressed a belief in traditional marriage.

Others expressed their belief that promotion of traditional marriage is to deny gay people their unalienable rights.

Both the expression of belief in traditional marriage and expression of support for gay rights fall within the concept of unalienable rights.

But if the CEO of Chick-fil-a sought to punish or impose consequences on the pro-gay-rights activist, he has stepped over the line into infringement of unalienable rights.

And whomever would see to punish or impose consequences on the CEO of Chick-fil-a for his support of traditional marriage also step over the line into infringement of unalienable rights.

Under the banner of liberty to exercise unalienable rights, each has the perfect right to do business with the other or not do business with the other. Each has a perfect right to object if anybody is violating the rights of another and to stop them with force if necessary. But neither has a natural right to force others to accept or comply with his belief--he only has a right to hold that belief. And neither has a natural right to punish anybody else because they hold a belief that is politically incorrect or offensive.

 

[RKMBrown]

Its hard to argue without addressing semantics. The existence of a god is not proven. I already defined natural and unalienable means you cannot take or give. All of the things on the list provided can be taken. If I kill someone I just took all their rights. Its amazing to me that no one seems to have any proof these rights exist and we are simply going on some theory people believed in.

But this is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a concept. Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did. Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.

So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.

And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.

The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.

I understand what you are saying. Its is just another example of how much thought went into this. My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct. Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist? It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people. How do you prove something like that?

He that giveth, can take away. The former's argument thusly is that we don't allow the government the right to take away that which they did not give in the first place.

The question of origin of said rights is moot. The rights do exist, period. The laws restricting government from taking away said rights is proof of their existence, period. The laws that subsequently allowed state government to take away said rights with due process (see 14th) are also proof that said rights exist.

For if they did not exist what the hell is being legislated? A vacuum of nothingness in space?

The argument/question is akin to saying air does not exist because the Constitution does not declare it so.

 

[dilloduck]

Both the expression of belief in traditional marriage and expression of support for gay rights fall within the concept of unalienable rights

Who says they do ? Where is this codified ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I do not have hangups. I have never once cared if people thought I was stupid simply because they cannot follow my logic. You, however, seem obsessed with proving that the fact I refuse to cater to your inability to disprove my previous arguments by arguing that the fact that I don't repeat myself means you are smarter than I am.

 

[dilloduck]

But this is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a concept. Some believe our unalienable rights are God given--most of the Founders did. Other great philosophers that those same Founders studied did not figure God into the equation in any way but understood that certain components of our existence were inate or 'natural' and that liberty required recognizing and defending that.

So in this regard, "God given" or "natural" or "unalienable" rights are interchangeable and, in the interest of liberty, each person can use the word that best describes his/her opinion or convictions about it.

And yes, one person can deny such rights to another. But again, the whole of the Constitution was based on the concept that such rights exist and via that same Constitution such rights would be recognized and defended so that people could live in liberty.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence expressing that very conviction and to separate the people from an authority who would dictate how they must worship, what they could and could not speak or express as personal conviction, how they would use their property, whether they would retain their property, etc.

The fact that so many would deny unalienable rights to others does not change the fact that liberty requires a belief in and respect for the unalienable rights of others.

I understand what you are saying. Its is just another example of how much thought went into this. My problem is with the assertion that this concept is actually correct. Where is the proof that these natural "rights" actually exist? It is totally unprovable and the evidence leans more to the side that they do not exist and have to be granted and protected by the government which is what this thread is about. It reminds me of the Papal Bull Dum Diversas in 1452 where the pope decreed Christians had a god given right to enslave people. How do you prove something like that?

He that giveth, can take away. The former's argument thusly is that we don't allow the government the right to take away that which they did not give in the first place.

The question of origin of said rights is moot. The rights do exist, period. The laws restricting government from taking away said rights is proof of their existence, period. The laws that subsequently allowed state government to take away said rights with due process (see 14th) are also proof that said rights exist.

For if they did not exist what the hell is being legislated? A vacuum of nothingness in space?

Cool--lets make a law that forbids the government from taking away rainbow colored unicorns and voila---we will have rainbow colored unicorns

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I talk about aliens because I enjoy mocking absurd theories.

 

[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.

I just did.

If you refuted it, you should be able to tell me what it is.

 

[dilloduck]

Keep telling yourself that.

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

I talk about aliens because I enjoy mocking absurd theories.

Like the theory of natural rights ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You have been unable to prove that rights are granted by government. If we ask you to supply evidence you simply declare that it is because it is. Perhaps you should consider actually proving that you are right instead of simply asserting that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

And, yes, I can prove that I am right, and will defend my position if you ever actually pull up one of my arguments and attack it based on its merits. If you continue to insist that the fact that I am not going back and repeating things I already said in this thread means you won the argument, feel free to declare yourself the winner of the debate and leave. That is what everyone else who argued with me did.