Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

No you don't. You want to pretend they don't exist by putting your hands over your ears and stomping up and down.

"Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable."

For example, a natural right would be the right of a person to think and contemplate actions. However, some actions when taken may require and/or be associated with legal rights.

Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.

How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?

Maybe that's the problem. Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun. In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.

In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." "She had every right to be angry."

For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry. That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.

Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.

An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people. (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure rights can be real. they just aren't natural. They are man made constructs

Which man made them? Show me evidence they did not exist before he made them. Explain why animals have the ability to chose, and have a sense of right and wring, given the fact that these are all made by man. Does that make man God?

You know full well that a negative can't be proven. You made the claim that natural rights exist therefore you must present us with one. No ---man is still not God.

Actually, since I am an educated person, I know it is actually possible to prove a negative. For example, science has conclusively that Aether does not exist. This would be impossible if you were right.

Proving Negatives

That said, you actually made the claim that rights come from man. Even if you were right about not being able to prove a negative I can still require you to prove your statement. Feel free to do so, in the meantime my questions to you serve as my proof that rights do not come from man, which, come to think of it, is another example of proving a negative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No I just gave him the right. I am a man. He always had freedom of choice but he didnt have the right until I granted it. Thats pretty much the point of rights.

Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.

Now you think you man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.

I am not the one claiming that he, personally, granted a right that did not previously exist. That is an act of creation, something that is only possible of you are actually God. The fact that you are unable to actually follow that logic shows how absurd your claim is.

By the way, since you can grant rights, and they are not unalienable, feel free to revoke my right to speech, it would conclusively demonstrate that you actually are God, and shut me up, which would be a win win for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.

Now you think man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.

I am not the one repeating myself, am I? One would think that an infallible being would notice something like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.

How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?

Maybe that's the problem. Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun. In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.

In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." "She had every right to be angry."

For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry. That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.

Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.

An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people. (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.

 

[RKMBrown]

How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?

Maybe that's the problem. Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun. In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.

In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." "She had every right to be angry."

For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry. That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.

Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.

An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people. (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.

Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.

Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.

I know that, he is the idiot that thinks he can grant the right to free will to other people.

 

[Asclepias]

Now you think you are God. That is even more mock worthy than insisting that aliens built the pyramids and that the fact that black people exist is proof you are right.

Now you think you man = God. You are losing you cool with each post Quantum.

I am not the one claiming that he, personally, granted a right that did not previously exist. That is an act of creation, something that is only possible of you are actually God. The fact that you are unable to actually follow that logic shows how absurd your claim is.

By the way, since you can grant rights, and they are not unalienable, feel free to revoke my right to speech, it would conclusively demonstrate that you actually are God, and shut me up, which would be a win win for you.

You must stay in a pretty confused state of mind if you think granting someone a right is godlike. I can grant you the right to step on my lawn and I don't need god like powers to do so.

BTW I will revoke your right to speech right after you show me an example of a natural right and where granting a right has anything to do with God. You are digging yourself a hole Quantum.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wouldn't that be a freedom? The terms "natural rights" or "inalienable rights" are oxymorons. Thats how you know they don't really exist. Freedom, even though it too is just a concept, does not contradict itself.

How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?

Maybe that's the problem. Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun. In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.

In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." "She had every right to be angry."

For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry. That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.

Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.

An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people. (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

The problem isn't that the words don't make sense when put together. The problem is your inaccurate assumption that rights must be granted.

Putting the definitions together..

A natural right is a right that exists in or is caused by nature and is not made or caused by humankind.

Because you don't believe a right can exist without a human granting it, you think a right can't exist that is in or caused by nature and is not made or cause by humankind.

Let go of your inaccurate assumption and "natural right" makes sense. The right of a lion to become angry when a predator attacks it's cub does not require granting by a human.

Your use of the term freedom, to explain away natural rights merely means that freedom is a natural right.

 

[Asclepias]

How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?

Maybe that's the problem. Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun. In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.

In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." "She had every right to be angry."

For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry. That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.

Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.

An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people. (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.

Rights come from man since they are man made. I grant you the right to breath.

 

[Asclepias]

How can an adjective like natural, be an oxymoron of a noun like right?

Maybe that's the problem. Right as a term can be used as an adjective, adverb, and noun. In the case of natural right, natural is the adjective and right is the noun.

In this case the definition of right as a noun is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." "She had every right to be angry."

For example, I could say everyone has the natural right to be angry. That would mean the right to be angry is not bestowed explicitly by govco in any laws or writ.

Said another way, using the adjective natural to modify the noun right, is a way of saying it is not a legal right, but rather a moral right that is well understood.

An oxymoron would be a natural amoral right to murder people. (not trying to deflect, but the natural right to abortion, is by definition an oxymoron.)

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

The problem isn't that the words don't make sense when put together. The problem is your inaccurate assumption that rights must be granted.

Putting the definitions together..

A natural right is a right that exists in or is caused by nature and is not made or caused by humankind.

Because you don't believe a right can exist without a human granting it, you think a right can't exist that is in or caused by nature and is not made or cause by humankind.

Let go of your inaccurate assumption and "natural right" makes sense. The right of a lion to become angry when a predator attacks it's cub does not require granting by a human.

Your use of the term freedom, to explain away natural rights merely means that freedom is a natural right.

I disagree my position is an assumption or that it is inaccurate. I need some proof that it is inaccurate before I let go of it.

Using your definition of "right"

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Both of these are man made constructs. "Entitlement" is definitely allowing or granting someone something.

A lion does not have a right to get angry unless someone says so. It has the freedom or power to get angry. Freedom is not the same thing as right. A right by its very definition has to be granted.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

The problem isn't that the words don't make sense when put together. The problem is your inaccurate assumption that rights must be granted.

Putting the definitions together..

A natural right is a right that exists in or is caused by nature and is not made or caused by humankind.

Because you don't believe a right can exist without a human granting it, you think a right can't exist that is in or caused by nature and is not made or cause by humankind.

Let go of your inaccurate assumption and "natural right" makes sense. The right of a lion to become angry when a predator attacks it's cub does not require granting by a human.

Your use of the term freedom, to explain away natural rights merely means that freedom is a natural right.

I disagree my position is an assumption or that it is inaccurate. I need some proof that it is inaccurate before I let go of it.

Using your definition of "right"

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Both of these are man made constructs. "Entitlement" is definitely allowing or granting someone something.

A lion does not have a right to get angry unless someone says so. It has the freedom or power to get angry. Freedom is not the same thing as right. A right by its very definition has to be granted.

Ok. Assuming you are not kidding.

Where in the definition of right is grant of a right mentioned? Do you not understand the difference between the noun "grant" and the noun "right?" Why don't you try to explain the difference between a grant of a right and a right. If you can explain the difference you will see your mistake.

 

[RKMBrown]

grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)

Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted. The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.

 

[RKMBrown]

Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.

Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.

I know that, he is the idiot that thinks he can grant the right to free will to other people.

If you listen to the authoritarians of the left and right long enough anyone could become entirely confused with regard to simple subjects like natural rights. Authoritarians of both sides don't like the idea of freedom and natural rights. Gives them nightmares to think what evils free people might do.

Orwellian thought police

 

[Asclepias]

grant 8. a privilege, right, etc, that has been granted (collins english dictionary)

Just because there can be a grant associated with a right... does not mean all rights must first be granted. The whole point of the classification of natural rights is that they DON'T HAVE TO BE GRANTED.

To me a right has to be granted (verb) as the definition conveys that a right is entitlement. There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is necessarily a question of right or wrong but more likely it is one of philosophy and maybe the English language.

 

[dilloduck]

I have natural as an adjective to mean this:

existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

I have right as a noun to mean this:

that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Maybe I am using the wrong word in oxymoron but those two words together don't make sense. Morals and honorability are human constructs which go against them being natural. I disagree you have the right to be angry unless someone grants you that right. You do have the freedom to be angry.

Feel free to tell me the actual source of rights, and then prove it.

Legal rights have a source, natural rights and/or inalienable rights don't have a source that's the frigging point.

That's because they don't exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The constitution is law, the declaration is not.
Significant difference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The fact that you can do these things in no way means those rights do not exist absent a grant or a legal protection by the government.
In fact, that you can, absent government, violate my rights only proves that my rights exist independent of that government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You deliberatly leave out the part where in order for -government- to grant sometning, it must do so through some mechamism of law.
As you continue to do this, it is clear you choose to be wrong.

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.

This is only true if "grant" can be defined as "the legal recognition of a legal protection mandated by law" -- which it cannot. You are, therefore, wrong.

 

[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.

What exactly is it that necessitates they pre-exist?

The fact that the rights exist, as proven by the protections afforded to them, absent any grant of those rights by the government.