Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

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 yo simply declare that it is because it is.

not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.”

In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.

 

[dilloduck]

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.”

In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.

My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.

 

[RKMBrown]

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 yo simply declare that it is because it is.

not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.

Only the rights they decided to protect are arguably more important than your demand for a right to believe in rainbow colored unicorns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Killing someone is not taking their right to life any more than clamping your hand over their mouth is taking their right to speech. The simple fact that you can infringe on preexisting rights is not evidence that they do not exist. That is supposed to be why we permit you to have a government, so that you can feel secure in your rights. Instead, you want to pretend the fact that you have a government means I do not have rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.

My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.

A natural right of the various elected governments to take life, liberty, and property away with due process was not afforded until the 14th amendment. Instead they provided limits on the federal government to do so in the form of the bill of restrictions on federal powers, aka bill of rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Where is the evidence that they don't? How do you explain free will in the absence of rights?

 

[dilloduck]

You have been unable to prove that rights are granted by government. If we ask you to supply evidence yo simply declare that it is because it is.

not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.

Only the rights they decided to protect are arguably more important than your demand for a right to believe in rainbow colored unicorns.

Possibly but it certainly doesn't make them natural or inalienable.

 

[dilloduck]

In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.

My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.

A natural right of the various elected governments to take life, liberty, and property away with due process was not afforded until the 14th amendment. Instead they provided limits on the federal government to do so in the form of the bill of restrictions on federal powers, aka bill of rights.

elected governments have no natural rights whatsoever

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

That was funny.

Just because you don't understand words is not evidence that everyone else uses them wrong. Faith is not something that exists in the absence of evidence, it would be insanity to think it does. Is that the entire problem here? Are we arguing with a person who is insane?

 

[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?

Where is the evidence that they don't? How do you explain free will in the absence of rights?

Easy--we are free to do whatever we want. We don't need a license or permit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Which would mean they exist without the government.

 

[Asclepias]

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!

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.

As usual you are deflecting from your inability to provide proof beyond the fact someone had a theory a long time ago. You keep making the same mistake in thinking your BS is actually convincing anyone you know anything at all about what you say. Show me where natural rights exist Quantum. Your theories nor anyone elses theories suffice as evidence. I want proof.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Know better than what?

 

[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.

Know better than what?

than other people I guess-----an Arab might think that owning a herd of camels and a harem was his natural right

 

[dilloduck]

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.

As usual you are deflecting from your inability to provide proof beyond the fact someone had a theory a long time ago. You keep making the same mistake in thinking your BS is actually convincing anyone you know anything at all about what you say. Show me where natural rights exist Quantum. Your theories nor anyone elses theories suffice as evidence. I want proof.

He can't. There are no natural rights. He knows it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

If it was absurd you would be able to mock it, all you have been able to do is argue that it isn't real because you don't believe in it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 yo simply declare that it is because it is.

not I. The government has cherry picked a few rights that it decided were important at the time and made some laws to protect them. They didn't grant anything.

So, rights exist outside the government. Glad to see you admitting I am right.

 

[Asclepias]

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.”

In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.

I dont really have to defend anything at all to have an open mind. I am sitting here open to you proving natural rights (which is an oxymoron) exist without man. Please teach me by showing me proof. Theories dont count.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

In order to learn something new you need an open mind. You actually don't even have a defense of your position that is based on anything other than the belief that you are right, which is not how people with open minds actually argue.

My mind is still open and waiting to hear which natural right was not something that man decided was important to protect.

You just said they were cherry picked. How do you pick something that isn't real?