Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions

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.

You don't grasp the essence of gravity, and you don't grasp the essence of inalienable rights. Such rights are not abilities; hence they can't be transferred or taken. Call them whatever you want. Inalienable rights is just the term we give them because they are not granted by man. That's all the term means.

Semantics, sir! Semantics. That's all you're going on about.

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

Indeed.

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

Political rights and civil rights/protections are granted by man. That's what you're defining. Natural rights are not and cannot be granted by man. They're natural, innate, imbued at the very least by nature, obviously.

Inalienable means that which cannot be given or taken.

False. Error. Insofar as we are talking about the natural rights of man, you are correct to say that they cannot be transferred/taken away by man; however, there's nothing in the meaning of the term inalienable that precludes the giving or granting of them. The only thing that can be empirically asserted about them in this regard is that they cannot be given/granted by man.

Are you making a theological argument of some kind? If so, let's hear it.

Rights are taken every time someone is killed.

LOL! One does not literally take a person's life when one kills a person. Are you daft? Are you so out of touch with reality that you can no longer distinguish the difference between reality and metaphor? Are you claiming that one literally takes possession of another's life or another's rights when one kills another? Where does one put these things after an evening of mayhem? In his pocket? His briefcase?

Moving on from the natural realm of being. . . .

Not only is your thinking lost in the dream world of metaphor, you're unwittingly making a metaphysical claim.

Earlier, because he's not anywhere near as bright as he thinks he is, G.T. (Rabbi and others) made the same error when he imagined that I was making a theological argument for natural law. No. My mention of God was merely an aside. Bonus information. One need not appeal to the existence of God to demonstrate the actualities of natural law, and my proof as such did not include God. G.T., utterly unawares, was the only one making a theological argument of sorts. Zoom! Right over his head.

The arrogance of a fool, more at the closed mindedness of an intellectual bigot.

They are only given by man since it is hocus pocus made up by man.

Back to governmentally granted rights again? You don't know the difference between the modifier natural and civil, not even in theory?

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

Uh . . . okay. I agree. So what's your point? After all only sentient beings can have inalienable rights. Only sentient beings can apprehend them. Who would I show them to if there were no sentient beings around to show them to?

But wait a minute!

Where would I be in that case!?

Behold: the mind of the relativist at work . . . er, well, not exactly at work, more at broken.

The evidence heavily supports the argument that rights are granted by man only and subsequently protected.

You dropped the pertinent modifier again: C-I-V-I-L. Or you can strike the term only from that statement to make it true. Choose.

[1]We have declarations of these [natural] rights written by men. [2] That is are [sic] only evidence they even exist. [3] Where are the declarations of these "natural/inalienable rights" written by nature?

1. True.
2. False.
3. Are you saying that man is not a part of nature? What other part of nature do you know of that can think and write? The cheese has slid off your cracker.

Oops..... I forgot nature can't present written evidence of rights . . .

I just proved that it can and does. What did you actually forget?

. . . nor can nature give us [natural] rights because they are also inalienable which stops nature from giving them to us.

This is a straw man. Natural law does hold that they are granted by nature, as that term implies sentience; the only kind of entity that can grant anything is a sentient entity.

The idiomatic expressions derived from nature or imbued by nature are metaphors, the meanings of which alert us, though some don't get the message apparently, to the distinction between the sentient aspects of the human being and the mechanistic aspects of his physical being and those of other existents.

Man either has inalienable, natural rights are he doesn't. That's the issue. I'm asserting that they are inherent to the nature of man, and can back that and have backed that without appealing to anything metaphysical whatsoever. In fact, I'm about to drive the point home even more emphatically. If you want to make a metaphysical argument that he doesn't have them, by all means, let's hear it. You've unwittingly backed yourself into another metaphysical quagmire.

In any event, you're contradicting yourself on at least two points.

(1) You conceded that humans can and do grant rights, albeit, you're talking about civil rights, and man is part of nature; you know, the thing you actually forgot. In government, we do grant rights to ourselves and others, just not natural rights; and you have yet to show for all your bluster how any of the natural rights that I and others have specifically identified and defined are derived from government.

(2) You premise your argument on the fact of inalienabililty, something that according to you doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[Asclepias]

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.

That is it in a nutshell. The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.

 

[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.
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.

 

[dilloduck]

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Where is there even a reasonable rationale for how they didn't exist before man made them up? I didn't assign the word 'natural' to them. That was the term that those who first acknowledged and wrote about them gave to them and which the Founders referred to as 'God given' or "unalienable'.

I don't know what a cat feels but for damn sure, whatever it feels exists whether or not we know about it or have a word to describe it.

Did somebody have to 'make up' breathing or love or fear in order for these things to exist? Did somebody have to 'thnk up' gravity in order for it to exist? Some things just are. Natural rights are something that just is.

As in how did unicorns not exist before someone made them up ?
Ya--long time ago other people tried to invent these things and come up with a name for them. WHY ? So they could make up some laws.

 

[Asclepias]

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Where is there even a reasonable rationale for how they didn't exist before man made them up? I didn't assign the word 'natural' to them. That was the term that those who first acknowledged and wrote about them gave to them and which the Founders referred to as 'God given' or "unalienable'.

I don't know what a cat feels but for damn sure, whatever it feels exists whether or not we know about it or have a word to describe it.

Did somebody have to 'make up' breathing or love or fear in order for these things to exist? Did somebody have to 'thnk up' gravity in order for it to exist? Some things just are. Natural rights are something that just is.

Then you should be able to show me one in action without man calling it a right. I should be able to watch God or nature give you a right from the beginning of the process to the end. Otherwise all you are talking about is an ability. An ability is not another word for a right. Ability is potential.

 

[dilloduck]

Oxymorons and Other Desperate Evasions



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 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.

You don't grasp the essence of gravity, and you don't grasp the essence of inalienable rights. Such rights are not abilities; hence they can't be transferred or taken. Call them whatever you want. Inalienable rights is just the term we give them because they are not granted by man. That's all the term means.

Semantics, sir! Semantics. That's all you're going on about.



Indeed.



Political rights and civil rights/protections are granted by man. That's what you're defining. Natural rights are not and cannot be granted by man. They're natural, innate, imbued at the very least by nature, obviously.



False. Error. Insofar as we are talking about the natural rights of man, you are correct to say that they cannot be transferred/taken away by man; however, there's nothing in the meaning of the term inalienable that precludes the giving or granting of them. The only thing that can be empirically asserted about them in this regard is that they cannot be given/granted by man.

Are you making a theological argument of some kind? If so, let's hear it.



LOL! One does not literally take a person's life when one kills a person. Are you daft? Are you so out of touch with reality that you can no longer distinguish the difference between reality and metaphor? Are you claiming that one literally takes possession of another's life or another's rights when one kills another? Where does one put these things after an evening of mayhem? In his pocket? His briefcase?

Moving on from the natural realm of being. . . .

Not only is your thinking lost in the dream world of metaphor, you're unwittingly making a metaphysical claim.

Earlier, because he's not anywhere near as bright as he thinks he is, G.T. (Rabbi and others) made the same error when he imagined that I was making a theological argument for natural law. No. My mention of God was merely an aside. Bonus information. One need not appeal to the existence of God to demonstrate the actualities of natural law, and my proof as such did not include God. G.T., utterly unawares, was the only one making a theological argument of sorts. Zoom! Right over his head.

The arrogance of a fool, more at the closed mindedness of an intellectual bigot.



Back to governmentally granted rights again? You don't know the difference between the modifier natural and civil, not even in theory?



Uh . . . okay. I agree. So what's your point? After all only sentient beings can have inalienable rights. Only sentient beings can apprehend them. Who would I show them to if there were no sentient beings around to show them to?

But wait a minute!

Where would I be in that case!?

Behold: the mind of the relativist at work . . . er, well, not exactly at work, more at broken.



You dropped the pertinent modifier again: C-I-V-I-L. Or you can strike the term only from that statement to make it true. Choose.



1. True.
2. False.
3. Are you saying that man is not a part of nature? What other part of nature do you know of that can think and write? The cheese has slid off your cracker.

Oops..... I forgot nature can't present written evidence of rights . . .

I just proved that it can and does. What did you actually forget?

. . . nor can nature give us [natural] rights because they are also inalienable which stops nature from giving them to us.

This is a straw man. Natural law does hold that they are granted by nature, as that term implies sentience; the only kind of entity that can grant anything is a sentient entity.
The idiomatic expressions derived from nature or imbued by nature are metaphors, the meanings of which alert us, though some don't get the message apparently, to the distinction between the sentient aspects of the human being and the mechanistic aspects of his physical being and that of other existents.

Man either has inalienable, natural rights are he doesn't. That's the issue. I'm asserting that they are inherent to the nature of man, and can back that and have backed that without appealing to anything metaphysical whatsoever. In fact, I'm about to drive the point home even more emphatically. If you want to make a metaphysical argument that he doesn't have them, by all means, let's hear it. You've unwittingly backed yourself into another metaphysical quagmire.

In any event, you're contradicting yourself on at least two points.

(1) You conceded that humans can and do grant rights, albeit, you're talking about civil rights, and man is part of nature; you know, the thing you actually forgot. In government, we do grant rights to ourselves and others, just not natural rights; and you have yet to show for all your bluster how any of the natural rights that I and others have specifically identified and defined are derived from government.

(2) You premise your argument on the fact of inalienabililty, something that according to you doesn't exist in the first place.

Would that be Mother Nature ?

 

[G.T.]

This thread got wheels wowza

Who is tuning into my radio show tnite?

 

[Foxfyre]

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.

That is it in a nutshell. The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.

Is that the burr under your saddle? That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given? That some believe that now? And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?

What if the term "God given" had never been coined? That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights? Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given". They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense. The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.

We think. We breathe. We live. We believe. We speak. We hope. We fear. We enjoy. We appreciate. We do what gives us pleasure. All this is the natural state of humankind; what humans do in their natural state. Natural rights are the acknowledgement that this is what humans are designed to do.

 

[dilloduck]

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

That is it in a nutshell. The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.

Is that the burr under your saddle? That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given? That some believe that now? And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?

What if the term "God given" had never been coined? That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights? Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given". They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense. The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.

There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.

 

[Asclepias]

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

That is it in a nutshell. The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.

Is that the burr under your saddle? That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given? That some believe that now? And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?

What if the term "God given" had never been coined? That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights? Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given". They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense. The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.

We think. We breathe. We live. We believe. We speak. We hope. We fear. We enjoy. We appreciate. We do what gives us pleasure. All this is the natural state of humankind; what humans do in their natural state. Natural rights are the acknowledgement that this is what humans are designed to do.

No thats not the burr as you call it. i dont have a problem with the concept of a god. I have a problem with the use of god to pass laws buttressed by a story about God striking you down for not obeying. However this is a tiny part of the burr. I have a large problem with rights being real without any evidence but not the Yeti.

If most of the great philosophers had empirical evidence where is it at? Please, please show me just one piece of evidence.

We do all those things as a function of biology. We are social animals so we make up rules to control the behaviors of the masses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Still waiting for you to explain your youe statement in any way negates mine.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is it in a nutshell. The God story made up centuries ago is losing its stranglehold. As much as I would like to think I have certain entitlements, rights etc one glimpse at the real world swiftly convinces you that you are really insignificant in the scheme of things.

Is that the burr under your saddle? That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given? That some believe that now? And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?

What if the term "God given" had never been coined? That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights? Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given". They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense. The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.

There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.

I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists. Proof that all planets rotate around suns. Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.

Prove to me that love exists. That hate exists. That hope exists. That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.

Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing. We accept that they exist because they are.

 

[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.

Yet you choose to not provide an example of a right existing without man granting it.

;yawn:
The right to free speech.
The right to assemble
The right to keep and bear arms.
None of these rights were granted by the government.
Disagree? Cite the text that does so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 ?

Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
I encourage you to try again.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Is that the burr under your saddle? That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given? That some believe that now? And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?

What if the term "God given" had never been coined? That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights? Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given". They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense. The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.

There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.

I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists. Proof that all planets rotate around suns. Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.

Prove to me that love exists. That hate exists. That hope exists. That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.

Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing. We accept that they exist because they are.

Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights. The proofs of natural law are self-evident. Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.

 

[Foxfyre]

There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.

I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists. Proof that all planets rotate around suns. Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.

Prove to me that love exists. That hate exists. That hope exists. That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.

Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing. We accept that they exist because they are.

Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights. The proofs of natural law are self-evident. Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.

I know there is as different people, including myself, have provided example after example after example. But that doesn't seem good enough. They might as well demand that we prove that dogs exist and then ignore it when we produce one and insist that there is no such thing.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Asclepias and gnarlylove:



Why it is Absurd to Equate the Concept of Granting Rights with the Concept of Protecting/Promoting Rights

(Are you paying attention, gnarlylove? By the way, those conventional, logical imperatives which you wrote about as if they were something profoundly beyond the reaches of my ken and which you applied to an argument I never made: are they self-evident and absolutely true within the confines of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, which include certain mathematical and geometrical calculi . . . or were you just foolin' around when you claimed no such things could possibly be apparent to sentient, albeit, contingent beings? Make up your mind!

Some folks just regurgitate the conventions of logical principles from books by rote; other folks, like I, don't need books to grasp them at a glance as being axiomatic on the very face of them as well as in their real-world applications.)
____________________________________________________


So, Asclepias, you're claiming that the terms grant and protect are synonymous, though it is self-evident that your contention is on the very face of it absolutely false? That is to say, you're claiming that it is self-evident that these terms are absolutely synonymous in every sense though that contention is on the very face of it absolutely false?

This is your contention, Asclepias, even though the only legitimate form of government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people? Indeed, this is your contention even though the only entities in the world that can form governments, apprehend rights or grant righs are people (sentient beings) who obviously precede government?

Which has dominion?

This is your contention even though in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and case law it's emphatically asserted/understood that the government exists, not to grant, but to merely protect/promote the innate rights of the people within the confines of the social construct as these rights are unabrigeable?

Which has dominion?

This is your contention even though the terms natural rights and inalienable are translated from the language of the state of nature to the language of the state of civil government as civil liberties and unabrigeable?

Which came first?

This is your contention even though it is the people (sentient beings) who do the granting of rights, that it is the people (sentient beings) who grant the right to the government to protect/promote their natural rights under the guise of civil liberties?

Which has dominion?

This is your contention even though the people reserve the power of the inalienable, natural right to dissolve that government, as our forefathers did to the government of the Articles of Confederation, or to revolt against and overthrow that government should it cease to serve its only legitimate purpose?

Which has dominion?

And, finally, this is your contention even though it be stretching credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that history's leading lights of the exegesis of nature's moral law were as absurdly stupid as you are making them out to be? That is to say, given the centuries-old tradition of innate rights: you actually believe that you relativists—with ontologically self-negating blather—have discovered something new or something they had never considered?

Who's smarter now?

Just how gullible are you? Can you even put a name on the political ideologues who put this nonsense into your head at school? Clearly, these are not your thoughts in the sense that you have thought things through and made them your own.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

gnarlylove:

Also, Asclepias, for you edification as well. . . .

Why the Trappings of Relativism are Irrational and Irrelevant

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. —Declaration of Independence

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. —Preamble to the Constitution
________________________

Oh, look, there's that word self-evident again! But no such things could possibly exist according to, gnarlylove . . . except, according to you, the contention that relativism is self-evident and absolutely true: that is to say, there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

That doesn't work, does it?

Or try this: it is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings can readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. For example, human beings can reckon that a triangle (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and three angles of equal degree) is the same thing as a square (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and four right angles) at the same time, on the same plane of reference.

But wait a minute!

That doesn't work at all, does it? That's nuts! Human beings, quit obviously, can do no such thing.

How about those absolute laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle that cannot be rationally violated? How about those logical categories of human consciousness that along with the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical calculi) comprise the inherently universal apprehensions of sentient, albeit, contingent beings? But—dang it! gosh almighty!—how can this be!? . . . unless . . . perhaps, maybe—just off the top of my head . . . at a glance, just shooting from the hip, as it were—the existence of these contingently sentient beings were grounded in Someone Who is not contingent to anything, but eternally self-subsistent and, quite obviously, would have the authority and the power to fashion said beings in such a way that they would share these inherently universal and absolute insights about reality and the nature of things, so that they might surmise His existence and the apparent fact that it is in Him that they live and move and have their being?

Do you see how that might work now, gnarlylove? You already conceded that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are inherently universal and must be hardwired. Recall?

While I appreciate the distinction you're making between universal qualities and inherent qualities, and especially your insight regarding the essence of natural law in accordance with the Anglo-American tradition--that's refreshing!--the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision would necessarily be inherently hardwired in order to be universal. In other words, its interesting that you grasp the fact that the mutual obligations of morality are the essence of natural law in the history of its exegesis, though you hold the latter to be a mere corollary in some sense: in nature, I don't know of any universal quality in any given category of thing that isn't also inherent in that category of thing.

Besides, the reason that all humans know that its wrong to murder or to oppress or to steal from others is because they would not have anyone do these things to them. Hence, everyone knows where their rights end and the rights of others begin. Even the sociopath/psychopath knows this. He just doesn't care, as one who's bereft of moral shame and empathy, until these things are perpetrated on him.

. . . Uh, currently, the reigning opinion in the epistemological literature, due to recent advances in the neurological sciences, holds that along with a universal baseline of geometric-logistic predilections: humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the human brain. The traditional, Aristotelian blank slate of Empiricism, at least in this respect, is dead.

Your response:

Excellent point. It forces me to clarify my own position in a meaningful way and that rarely happens on here. Many thanks.

My reply is that I'm not saying human beings don't have these hard wired. I've said indeed there is a biological component that pervades all culture. You can call it the golden rule but we don't really know much about this topic; though good work has been done by John Mikhail on this subject.

Now, are you ready to concede the fact that they are also absolute, at the very least, within the framework of human consciousness and experience . . . whether, objectively speaking, they be backed by any actually existing divinity or not? For let us consider the fact that for all intents and purposes, given that human beings cannot coherently reckon existents or successfully handle them, things both rational and empirical, unless they do so in such a way which in effect amounts to these things being absolute beyond the confines of human consciousness?

*crickets chirping*

The answer is obvious. Indeed, the answer is self-evident.

In the final analysis of things as they are, not as they might be purely as a matter of dogma: human beings cannot and do not live their lives as if the irrationalism of relativism were true regardless of what they might believe to be true . . . ultimately.

You see, the difference between folks like me and relativists: we don't care about the irrelevancies of abstract social constructs and the like, theoretical mumbo jumbo, semantic quibbles over actualities or sophomoric philosophical distinctions over potentialities which make no difference, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be." That is not the pertinent question!

And, once again, as I have shown, I don't have to appeal to the existence of God in order to demonstrate the practical actualities of human existence and apprehension . . . though only a fool would deny the cogency of my observation regarding the same. And I don't have to appeal to God's existence in order to demonstrate the practical actualities of human conduct and human interaction with regard to the imperatives of natural law (or natural morality), which, by the way, is the thing I declared to be self-evident and absolute in the context that you mangled! I had already proven elsewhere, just as I have proven once again in the above, that the inherently universal, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness were absolutely binding for all intents and purposes.

It's relativists who confuse themselves and mangle the facts of existence, as they spout logically indefensible rubbish of the esoteric kind.

And in that very same post, I went on to prove why the imperatives of natural law are not only inherently universal, which you conceded, but why their existence is self-evident and why their nature is absolute as well.

(Though why you would question the fact that they are axiomatically apparent after conceding that they are inherently universal remains a mystery.)

 

[dilloduck]

There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.

I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists. Proof that all planets rotate around suns. Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.

Prove to me that love exists. That hate exists. That hope exists. That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.

Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing. We accept that they exist because they are.

Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights. The proofs of natural law are self-evident. Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.

Interesting----first you claim there is plenty of evidence and then turn around and claim they are self evident. I think Jefferson was using anything he could get his hands on to make sure people thought these rights were important enough to deserve protection

 

[dilloduck]

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 ?

Not sure how any of this negates the soundness of my posiiton - that for someting to be violated, it must first exist.
I encourage you to try again.

so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ? Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.