Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is an easement, not a right, but don't let the fact that you don't know the difference affect your belief that you are God.

 

[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.

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

If you can grant it vie internet you can take it away vie the same medium. Feel free to prove you have the ability to grant rights by taking away my right to breathe. Are you going to do that before, or after, you take away my right to speak?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
The government did not grant the right to free speech.
As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorely disappointed. I really thought I was going to learn something new.

As you choose to be wrong, you have not learned because you refuse to do so.

 

[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.

The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
The government did not grant the right to free speech.
As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.

Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,

 

[M14 Shooter]

They can't prove any natural rights exist.

The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
The government did not grant the right to free speech.
As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.

Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,

My argument is perfectly sound; your criticism is non-sequitur.

 

[dilloduck]

The right to free speech exists, as proven by the protections afforded to it.
The government did not grant the right to free speech.
As the right exists absent any such grant, they must therefore exist independent of government - and thus, natural.

Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,

My argument is perfectly sound; your criticism is non-sequitur.

Speaking existed prior protections being offered to it. Speaking is natural yet not a right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.

Indeed. The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.

The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.

Indeed. The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.

The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.

It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Illogical---we're back to claiming unicorns exist if someone makes a law protecting them,

My argument is perfectly sound; your criticism is non-sequitur.

Speaking existed prior protections being offered to it. Speaking is natural yet not a right.

Free speech is not a right?
It appears the constitution disagrees with you.
Not sure how you got that one wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Civil rights are entitlements, and even they do not have to be granted.

Indeed. The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.

The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.

It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.

Incorrect.
Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.

 

[itfitzme]

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

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.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.

Because everything is by agreement. And seeing as government is the only entity that can enforce those agreements, ....

 

[dilloduck]

Indeed. The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.

The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.

It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.

Incorrect.
Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.

I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.

Incorrect.
Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.

I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.

Nothing you said here negates anything in my statement.

 

[dilloduck]

Incorrect.
Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.

I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.

Nothing you said here negates anything in my statement.

Sure it does-------speech is not a right of any kind----it is simply something we do

 

[M14 Shooter]

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

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.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.

Because everything is by agreement. And seeing as government is the only entity that can enforce those agreements, ....

Incorrect.
Government exists so that the people need not enforce those "agreements" themselves.
Absent government, enforcement of rights comes from the individual.
This is why you can shoot someone trying to kill you, rather than waiting for the police to do it.

 

[itfitzme]

Indeed. The government, for instance, grants you the right to a trial because the right to a trial can only exist in the context of a government.

The right to free speech requires no such context and therefore exists independent of same.

It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.

Incorrect.
Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.

Absent of any government, you will quickly find you will not be able to say anything after your tounge has been cut out. Of course, you will have the right to say what you have been told to say while being tortured.

Medieval Torture

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.

Nothing you said here negates anything in my statement.

Sure it does

I stated that:

Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.

Expalin how your statement...

I can say anything I want even if the government says I can't and I don't need a right to do it.

..negates this

When doing so, understand that I am talking about the right to say anyting I want and you are talking about the physical abilty to speak - inequal propositions.

Good luck.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's simply speech. It's only free speech when the content is taken into consideration.

Incorrect.
Absent any government whatsoever, you have every right to say anything you want.

Absent of any government, you will quickly find you will not be able to say anything after your tounge has been cut out.

The fact that my rights can be violated absent the presence of any governent only proves that my rights exist absent any government.