Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

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.

Wrong
I am NOT referring to an ability to speak.
I simply speak---I need no permission, license or freedom. If some one wants to protect the content of what I say that's fine and dandy but it has no bearing on my speech. It's trying to say a dog has the right to bark.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

An easement is a right but don't let that gaping hole in your logic stop you from thinking you know what you are talking about.

A right of use over the property of another.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Yet you choose to not provide an example of a right existing without man granting it. Furthermore you claim that other rights must be cited in order to be granted. You are all over the map.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

close to the unicorn argument again---yelling "I have been violated" is evidence that you had a right ?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Yet you choose to not provide an example of a right existing without man granting it. Furthermore you claim that other rights must be cited in order to be granted. You are all over the map.

desperation

 

[dilloduck]

Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.

M.D. Rawlings

This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.

That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.

I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur. On the contrary, natural law presupposes it: light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions, initial force-defensive force. The right of revolt, for crying out loud!

In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.

Governments do universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human. But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you? And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly? Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!

Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof? These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain. That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of real criminality.

You are refuted.

LOL not hardly

Come up with a natural right yet ?

 

[dilloduck]

Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Right. Natural law is not natural morality and, therefore embedded in nature?!

Once again for the peanuts in the cheap seats:

You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.

Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.

Uh . . . you made a claim that is demonstrably false--empirically, academically and historically. A risibly foolish claim.

And because you don't know what natural law and natural rights are . . . beyond the brute instincts of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't realize that grasping what natural law actually is at the intellectual level of apprehension is grasping the manner in which nature enforces these things.

OP? I moved on from the elementary concerns of the OP pages ago.

No. Let's look at this rash of stupidity again, the one you keep trying to blot out:

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Now let's look at how nature enforces natural law and the inalienable natural rights of man in the state of nature and in the state of civil government, as you go on about how civil rights exerted by the government are systematically destroying the free expression of civil liberties in America, that is to say, insofar as you understand the actual dynamics of the problem and the nature of the threats therein.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/347624-do-natural-rights-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 57 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 71 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[dilloduck]

Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?

Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question? You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.

Zoom! Right over your head.

 

[dilloduck]

Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?

Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question? You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Wrongola------I'm arguing that they don't exist at all.

Try to keep up

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right

But that's a lie, isn't it? On both counts.


The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell

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.

 

[dilloduck]

Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right

But that's a lie, isn't it? On both counts.


The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell

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.

Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?

I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why in the world does anything need to have a right to do something that they already do ?

Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question? You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Wrongola------I'm arguing that they don't exist at all.

Try to keep up

Well, you need to do a better job than you've been doing, given the fact. . . .

So even the unabrigeable civil liberties as recognized by the government in the Bill of Rights, as well as the political rights and civil rights/protections of statutory and case law don't exist either?

Really? Since when?

 

[dilloduck]

Why are you asking the classical liberals on this thread that question? You're the one arguing that they don't exist without government.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Wrongola------I'm arguing that they don't exist at all.

Try to keep up

Well, you need to do a better job than you've been doing, given the fact. . . .

So even the unabrigeable civil liberties as recognized by the government in the Bill of Rights, as well as the political rights and civil rights/protections of statutory and case law don't exist either?

Really? Since when?

Sure man has made laws to encourage certain behavior and restrict other behavior. There just isn't anything "natural" about them.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Massive obfuscation----you are the one who cannot define a natural right

But that's a lie, isn't it? On both counts.


The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell

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.

Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?

I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.

So the first claim is false, right? They have been identify and defined, right? I identified and defined them, right?

You unwittingly conceded that when you say that, at very least, they are human rights supposedly thought of by men.

And with that you concede that fact that they exist.

The rest is your abstract semantics.

But of course, the innate rights are not derived from government.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why dilloduck Refutes Himself and Substantiates the Imperatives of Natural Law

Every regime that exists or has ever existed, including authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, recognize three categories of criminality and punish those who engage in them: murder, the various forms of criminal subjugation, and theft, which correlate with the innate rights of life, liberty and property, which pertain to life, to the fundamentals of human action and to property.

M.D. Rawlings

This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.

That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.

I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur. On the contrary, natural law presupposes it: light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions, initial force-defensive force. The right of revolt, for crying out loud!

In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.

Governments do universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human, for example. But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you? And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly? Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!

Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof? These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain. That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of real criminality.

You are refuted.

 

[dilloduck]

But that's a lie, isn't it? On both counts.


The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/in a Nutshell

Who exactly decided that these things existed and where is the proof ? Where in nature are they "embedded" ?

I can tell you who decided these things were human rights----MEN decided it.

So the first claim is false, right? They have been identify and defined, right? I identified and defined them, right?

You unwittingly conceded that when you say that, at very least, they are human rights supposedly thought of by men.

And with that you concede that fact that they exist.

The rest is your abstract semantics.

But of course, the innate rights are not derived from government.

Omg what a desperate attempt at grasping some kind of victory. There are no innate rights and I concede nothing. Thinking about unicorns doesn't make them real.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

An easement is a right but don't let that gaping hole in your logic stop you from thinking you know what you are talking about.

A right of use over the property of another.

Still an easement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

M.D. Rawlings

This is absurd. Murder and killing have been second nature to regimes throughout history.
The only murders they objected to were the ones they didn't like.

That's a knee-jerk reaction, not a carefully thought out objection.

I didn't say that oppression doesn't exist or occur. On the contrary, natural law presupposes it: light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions, initial force-defensive force. The right of revolt, for crying out loud!

In any event, you're not overthrowing my observation, but substantiating it.

Governments do universally recognize these three categories of innate rights and their correlates, as you yourself concede in making the distinction between killing a human and murdering a human. But more to the point, you are making a distinction between justice and injustice, one that you cannot evade, can you? And you are making this distinction . . . relative to what exactly? Those inalienable, natural rights, that's what!

Finally, if what you claim is true about the dangers of government, which natural law emphatically presupposes, then why do you celebrate the notion of empowering the government in nonessential ways that go beyond its fundamental purpose and the immediately beneficial or political rights thereof? These are the very kind of powers that lead to the tyranny and the atrocities about which you complain. That is to say, persons or groups of persons who are "pesky upstarts" or are an excuse to rally the mob, are dehumanized in order that they may be incarcerated, reeducated or murdered without the due process of law in terms of real criminality.

You are refuted.

LOL not hardly

Come up with a natural right yet ?

Come up with proof that they are man made yet?