Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

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?

over and over-----who came up with the idea ? Dogs ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

LOL! I don't need to do that as long as you keep refuting yourself like you did here: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 87 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

LOL not hardly

Come up with a natural right yet ?

Come up with proof that they are man made yet?

over and over-----who came up with the idea ? Dogs ?

You're the one who refuted yourself and unwittingly proved their existence right here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=8910086#post8910086

Are you a dog?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions

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.

absolutely oxymorons ! I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding some other way to define them. I think they figured out that when people started to give plants and animals rights it was getting to look a little suspicious.

LOL! One fallacious premise and subsequent straw man after another.


"I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding [sic] some other way to define them."

LOL!

The only desperation in sight is that of relativists trying to overthrow incontrovertible realities with embarrassingly fallacious doggerel.


"The terms 'natural rights' or 'inalienable rights' are oxymorons."

The only oxymoron here is the one that is not explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way: Natural rights are not abilities. Freedoms are abilities. Natural rights are something else.

Natural rights are. You don't have to do anything to have them, but be born into nature. They are the inherent attributes and inherent expressions of sentient beings and sentient beings only. They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a right to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.

Hence, only sentient beings can have them, apprehend them, grant rights of any kind or form governments.

Mere animals can't do any of these things. . . .

And why can't they do anything of these things?

Because they are not born into nature with and, therefore, do not possess the inherent attributes and the inherent expressions of sentient beings.

Nope! No need to appeal to God to demonstrate their reality in nature. However, folks should never forget by Whom (sentient being) they are ultimately endowed, so as not to fallaciously equate them to the mere abilities of freedom and get all oxymoronically duh or confuse themselves self into thinking that animals somehow or another grant themselves rights.

Animals do not have any rights, but those that human beings, not God, dilloduck, might stupidly grant them beyond the concern of unnecessarily inhumane treatment, and the rights that we might grant them, obviously, are not natural rights of any kind as they would necessarily be administered and enforced by government. Otherwise, animals are nothing more than natural resources or property.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL not hardly

Come up with a natural right yet ?

Come up with proof that they are man made yet?

over and over-----who came up with the idea ? Dogs ?

Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Come up with proof that they are man made yet?

over and over-----who came up with the idea ? Dogs ?

Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?

Only in my dreams. dilloduck has never awaken from his.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Hey i get his angle now. Man is natural. It was a riddle inside of a puzzle disguised as an enigma.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But I dug out my old papers and have a few more thoughts on absolute capacities of human beings that might help convince you further that your position is false.

Okay, gnarlylove, I'm over it. I was very annoyed, obviously, by the portion of my post that was taken way out of context by you. What's annoying about that is that one has to waste reams of time and space by correcting distortions before one can even begin to refute/respond to things of actual substance. It's just, well, annoying.

I read your entire post. I'm sorry you had such a tough start in life, but the fact of the matter is that I don't come from privilege in the usual sense of that word, but I did not come from dirt poor rags or homelessness either. I'm an ex-soldier, mostly self-taught. I do work at homeless shelters and the like, so I do know something about it.

I did read the rest of your post and found your ideas to be interesting. I agree with some of them, but not most. But I wouldn't even dare touch your beliefs about God and Christianity beyond the pertinent particulars of the OP, and, in any event, have no desire to do so.

The only thing I would assert as I refer you back to my posts on the sociopolitical extrapolations from Christianity's ethical system of thought and Christianity's place in the history of natural law is that the problems you talk about, both real and imagined . . . well, they just ain't Christianity's fault or the fault of those who accurately applied its teachings to natural law. Bottom line: it's all about liberty. What men have done with these truths is another matter. Man's nature is corrupt, so he corrupts everything he touches. Getting at the actuality of natural law and the rights thereof is the only way to see the necessity of limited government, which, other than the checks and balances of nature and God, is the most immediately practical check that all can see against human nature. The rest is history.

I'll answer your charges regarding the state of man's mind and powers of apprehension tomorrow.

You're wrong as you could, and I can prove that quite readily without breaking a sweat.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Which is defined as a right. Its ok. You can admit you didn't know. You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.

 

[Asclepias]

Come up with proof that they are man made yet?

over and over-----who came up with the idea ? Dogs ?

Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?

The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Of course that's not a correct assumption. The reason that the recognition of these rights goes back to the dawn man is the same reason that these three categories of rights have been recognized and asserted throughout recorded history: They are innate. If what you claim to believe were true, and I don't think you really believe it in your heart of hearts, one would expect history to be all over the place. But it's not. And those of us who have our eyes wide open can see the everyday, walk-in-the-park realities of natural law in human conduct and interaction, and can see the triadic, reoccurring theme without breaking a sweat, while the chaos that others see is nothing more than man's corruption and follies swirling around the truth.

Natural law and the rights thereof are absolute!

You can't transfer my rights or take them away at all with any of the actions you're talking about. While you see and deal with the reality of these three categories of rights and their correlates at an instinctual level of self-preservation and self-interest, you don't grasp what they actually are at all.

The pertinent question that you have yet to ask yourself is the question arguably most famously asked by Aurelius: what is the essence of the thing? Strip away everything else.

Do you want to know the truth or not?

In any event, I'll show you precisely why they are absolute tomorrow as I utterly demolish gnarylove's claims about the state of man's mind and the powers of his apprehension.

In the meantime check this out. You guys are refuting yourselves every time you post. That's how real they are.


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.
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 refuted yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Still an easement.

Which is defined as a right. Its ok. You can admit you didn't know. You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.

An easement is defined as a limited and specific right which allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.

So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?

 

[Asclepias]

Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions

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.

absolutely oxymorons ! I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding some other way to define them. I think they figured out that when people started to give plants and animals rights it was getting to look a little suspicious.

LOL! One fallacious premise and subsequent straw man after another.


"I still claim someone has a lot of trouble with the concept of God given rights so they are desperately trying to finding [sic] some other way to define them."

LOL!

The only desperation in sight is that of relativists trying to overthrow incontrovertible realities with embarrassingly fallacious doggerel.


"The terms 'natural rights' or 'inalienable rights' are oxymorons."

The only oxymoron here is the one that is not explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way: Natural rights are not abilities. Freedoms are abilities. Natural rights are something else.

Natural rights are. You don't have to do anything to have them, but be born into nature. They are the inherent attributes and inherent expressions of sentient beings and sentient beings only. They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a right to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.

Hence, only sentient beings can have them, apprehend them, grant rights of any kind or form governments.

Mere animals can't do any of these things. . . .

And why can't they do anything of these things?

Because they are not born into nature with and, therefore, do not possess the inherent attributes and the inherent expressions of sentient beings.

Nope! No need to appeal to God to demonstrate their reality in nature. However, folks should never forget by Whom (sentient being) they are ultimately endowed, so as not to fallaciously equate them to the mere abilities of freedom and get all oxymoronically duh or confuse themselves self into thinking that animals somehow or another grant themselves rights.

Animals do not have any rights, but those that human beings, not God, dilloduck, might stupidly grant them beyond the concern of unnecessarily inhumane treatment, and the rights that we might grant them, obviously, are not natural rights of any kind as they would necessarily be administered and enforced by government. Otherwise, animals are nothing more than natural resources or property.

Your prattle is breathtaking in your sheer mastery of it. I must confess I am in awe at how easily it streams from your fingertips.

The only oxymoron here is the one that is not explicitly in evidence, but rather implicitly and illogically inserted into the equation by the person who got lost along the way: Natural rights are not abilities. Freedoms are abilities. Natural rights are something else.

The bolded part is pretty much what I said except I specified that natural rights were man made. Sounds like we are close to figuring this out.

Freedom is the ability to do something. It can be taken but it is natural.

Rights by their very definition are granted and specifically granted by man therefore making them not natural.

Inalienable means that which cannot be given or taken. Rights are taken every time someone is killed. They are only given by man since it is hocus pocus made up by man.

You cant show me where the proof appears that natural/inalienable rights exist without bringing man into the equation.

The evidence heavily supports the argument that rights are granted by man only and subsequently protected. We have declarations of these rights written by men. That is are only evidence they even exist. Where are the declarations of these "natural/inalienable rights" written by nature?

Oops..... I forgot nature can't present written evidence of rights nor can nature give us rights because they are also inalienable which stops nature from giving them to us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

over and over-----who came up with the idea ? Dogs ?

Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?

The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.

All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.

 

[Asclepias]

Still an easement.

Which is defined as a right. Its ok. You can admit you didn't know. You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.

An easement is defined as a limited and specific right which allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.

So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?

You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right. Lets remind us both of what you said.

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

Why are you contradicting yourself? Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.

 

[Asclepias]

Men came up with the idea of gravity, does that make it imaginary?

The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.

All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.

You need to brush up on using a dictionary. Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right. if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.

 

[beagle9]

Man this OP is all over the place. Ok, so we have our naturally ((born with rights)) in which God had given unto us prior to our birthing right ? Then we have our protection of those rights as charged unto those who understand these things, in that were also understandably given by God within the miracle of life itself, and this upon the experiences in which we all have seen as good and prosperous unto us. Therefore those who are charged with this protection of, and they as God has commanded them to do also, shall make sure that our rights to live, and to eat, and to learn, and to grow in safety of, are "of course" protected as is commanded of our protectors to do so by God almighty himself through out the generations of the world, and that is found of course within the natural order of things in which we do know them to be.

My belief is that it is written within us to do so as human beings created by God, to always protect the rights of those who are not yet able to protect those rights in which they are then born with, and in which they have been given prior to being born with also, It is that we shall do this for God whom hath done these things for us in which we do marvel over always because it is right, and in this understanding of these things in which we do know, and in which we have seen before our very eyes, has brought forth great results in the righteousness for which has covered the whole world over in our sight of, and also within our experience of.

This has allowed us to thrive and to grow while in their's (our parents) care. Once we expereince these things, and the benefits from them, then we are to also do the same for those who are among us just as well in life. It is especially to be upheld for those for whom have not yet come forth into the world, but are yet standing at the doorway ready to enter in (i.e. the unborn child), in which has also thee right to be protected as we understand such a right to be in life, and for which we do know it to be or that we should know it to be if we don't know it to be.

A baby has a right to be protected in the womb prior to birth is my opinion, and it is a God given right in which the mother understands or should understand per her being charged of this duty in which is built into her own DNA as a woman who has been charged to bare this responsibility, and who is to bare this understanding in her life as found in the way in which it has been charged naturally of her to do so.

A woman who denies herself of these understandings and things, and some how seperates herself of these understandings in which comes naturally unto her, is a woman that has lost her way in life or has been influenced by another in confusion of or has experienced trama that has made her incapable of rational thought due to her life experiences that are different some how from others who are just like her in gender, but are not like her in thought any longer. How it happens unto a person is anyones guess, and especially if we do not know what has taken place in another persons life like this. I think that the pressures of an unstable enviroment can & do on many occassions lead to the many situations that we have a hard time understanding for ourselves in life. I mean unless we are close enough to it or do experience the same things also in life, and in which has gone terribly wrong for another in which we have survied ourselves also, then we can only serve to help by finding out what takes place, and then to help the person at all points available as due to our learning of these things in which causes one to get off course in life.

Such things can cause harm to another in worse case senario's (directly or indirectly), so it is that we should be wise in the caring of all those who suffer the things that we know are not normal, and in which we know them not to be normal. We should try always to help those who are willing to be treated once they come to us for whom are learned and wise in these things, and in which they would therefore ask for our help as trained specialist in such fields of expertise. We would be sought after in life by them, and that is the first step along with a great one if help can be given unto them who have become lost in life.

Many cases are seemingly on the rise today in the world, because confusion is becoming king again as the world seemingly moves away from the God for whom they once knew, and now hap hazzardly worships the creature instead.

 

[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.

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.

The disconnect is a combination of english, a decided lack of agreement for definition of terms, and stubbornness.

You are redefining "natural rights" that do not require a grant, as un-natural rights that require a grant. IOW you don't believe in the concept of "natural rights" at all. Then having stubbornly refused to agree what a "natural right" is, you then deflect the definition of the term to mean various things that it is not.

There can be no viable communication between two people if the definition of common terms being used by the two people are quite literally opposites.

If I say gravity is a force exhibited by objects in free fall by their acceleration toward each other, and is further based on displacement of time and space by the mass of the objects, and you say gravity does not exist and even if it did it is an imaginary repelling force then we probably won't agree on any topic related to gravity since your definition of gravity would be considered as quite literally the opposite of mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which is defined as a right. Its ok. You can admit you didn't know. You were doing better when you were talking about aliens.

An easement is defined as a limited and specific right which allows the property owner to retain actual ownership of the land in question. That is the reason that educated people use easement when they talk about it, because if you actually granted them rights to the property you would be giving p your right to it.

So, tell me, are you giving them the property, or an easement?

You are funny when you try to divert from the issue in which you claimed an easement was not a right. Lets remind us both of what you said.

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

Why are you contradicting yourself? Are you embarrassed or something? I said it was OK. People make mistakes all the time.

I just pointed out the difference between a right and an easement, were you sleeping, or just pretending that you are smarter than everyone else? This thread is about natural rights, which are inherent in you as a self aware individual. Easements are legal grants for a limited use of a property, not natural rights. Forgive me if I refuse to let you pretend that the fact that you can grant a limited legal right to someone means you can actually grant rights that people already have. You are not God, and nothing you can say will ever prove me wrong on that point.

Unless, that is, you actually take away my natural rights by denying me the ability to think, or even speak.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The existence of gravity can be proven. Drop an apple. It worked for Sir Issac Newton.

All that proves is that we are in an inertial frame of reference. You really need to brush up on Einstein.

You need to brush up on using a dictionary. Gravity is defined and observable. I have yet to observe a natural right. if you have observed one send me a video of the experiment proving it.

Never said it wasn't, did I? I just pointed out that the fact that objects "fall" does not prove that gravity exists.