Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[RKMBrown]

You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.

Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end. Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.

Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?

Good point, and a much better question.

The point is only certain of our rights should be legislated by the federal government, that is what good they are. They are good to show and/or elevate differences between that which should be regulated and that which should not be regulated by said potentially tyrannical forces.

Look what happens when we are not paying attention. Look at the 14th amendment where the government gave itself the power to take your life, liberty, and property by due process, wherein the due process is what they say is due process. Look at the un-patriot act. We are but slaves to a government, that has declared itself our judge, jury, and conviction-er.

 

[Asclepias]

There was definitely an agenda, just as there's an agenda now in the campaign to consider rights as "made up". I actually think that's the more interesting angle in this discussion. The whole point of claiming natural rights was to establish a rationale for basic freedom that didn't depend on the whim of nation-states, whether they be 'democratic' or ruled by the divine right of kings. The agenda to reverse that, to make our rights once again dependent on our rulers, should properly be seen as a threat to human rights, and ultimately authoritarian.

That may be true but it doesnt change the fact that rights are something thought up by man as a protection mechanism to maintain order in society. it is our instinct to establish a pecking order and rights are bestowed by the ruling class. We get in where we fit in and restrain our abilities to stay at the level of our rights. That is how the ruling class keeps us in control. I have the ability to go pick out a room in the White House and sleep there but I don't have the right.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The question is whether rights are based on something objective, like rational observation of the human condition, or subjective, like the decree of rulers. Of course they are "made up", in the sense that they are products of human thought. But so are other observational natural laws. But that doesn't make the underlying reality and less 'real'.

Again, I have to ask what you see as the practical implications of your view that natural rights are 'just made up' - specifically in regard to how we decide what basic human rights should be. Are you saying we should make no attempt to find a rational basis for rights? What should be the criteria, if not objective observation of human nature?

I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed. I have the ability to do as I please. I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security. It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control. Yes we should establish laws to protect people but lets call it what it is. We dont need to validate those laws by claiming nature gave them to us. It should suffice to say you are not allowed kill someone because its against the laws established.

 

[dilloduck]

"We the people" decide, and we enlist government to enforce them.

Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.

No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.

We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?

 

[dblack]

That may be true but it doesnt change the fact that rights are something thought up by man as a protection mechanism to maintain order in society. it is our instinct to establish a pecking order and rights are bestowed by the ruling class. We get in where we fit in and restrain our abilities to stay at the level of our rights. That is how the ruling class keeps us in control. I have the ability to go pick out a room in the White House and sleep there but I don't have the right.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The question is whether rights are based on something objective, like rational observation of the human condition, or subjective, like the decree of rulers. Of course they are "made up", in the sense that they are products of human thought. But so are other observational natural laws. But that doesn't make the underlying reality and less 'real'.

Again, I have to ask what you see as the practical implications of your view that natural rights are 'just made up' - specifically in regard to how we decide what basic human rights should be. Are you saying we should make no attempt to find a rational basis for rights? What should be the criteria, if not objective observation of human nature?

I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed and defined. I have the ability to do as I please. I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security. It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control.

This is about the relative authority of government, not me and you, so again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And of course it's about social control, pretty much all of morality is working on that. Why do you see that as a problem? More importantly, why do you see returning control of our rights to government as an improvement?

 

[dblack]

Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.

No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.

We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?

Take it how you like. Or, you could try to understand it. We're talking, fundamentally, about how we decide what basic human rights should be, or even (I guess) whether there should be any. Could you clarify what you prefer as an alternative?

 

[dilloduck]

Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end. Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.

Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?

Good point, and a much better question.

The point is only certain of our rights should be legislated by the federal government, that is what good they are. They are good to show and/or elevate differences between that which should be regulated and that which should not be regulated by said potentially tyrannical forces.

Look what happens when we are not paying attention. Look at the 14th amendment where the government gave itself the power to take your life, liberty, and property by due process, wherein the due process is what they say is due process. Look at the un-patriot act. We are but slaves to a government, that has declared itself our judge, jury, and conviction-er.

That will happen if we are paying attention or not. There is nothing we can do about it.

 

[dilloduck]

No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.

We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?

Take it how you like. Or, you could try to understand it. We're talking, fundamentally, about how we decide what basic human rights should be, or even (I guess) whether there should be any. Could you clarify what you prefer as an alternative?

Our country has argued with it self from day one over what behaviors should be protected and what behaviors should be unished. We have a generally framework that is supposed to keep a few major behaviors protected but years of interpretations and definition changes has slowly eroded them. I think the frame work we have is as good as any.

 

[dblack]

We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?

Take it how you like. Or, you could try to understand it. We're talking, fundamentally, about how we decide what basic human rights should be, or even (I guess) whether there should be any. Could you clarify what you prefer as an alternative?

Our country has argued with it self from day one over what behaviors should be protected and what behaviors should be unished. We have a generally framework that is supposed to keep a few major behaviors protected but years of interpretations and definition changes has slowly eroded them. I think the frame work we have is as good as any.

What do you mean by that? The framework laid out by the Constitution (which, is based on natural rights) - or the myriad ways we've strayed from that? That's really what we're arguing about here, whether we stick with the natural rights approach, or fully grant authority over determining our rights to government. Which are you advocating? Either? Something else?

 

[RKMBrown]

Right-----conservatives and liberals will join together and make up a list.

No, the list would be infinite. They characterize them generally (that's where 'inalienable' comes in) and protect them via Constitutional government.

We can do anything we want with government protection-----you're joking now I take it ?

Obama used his government protection to murder US citizens with predator drones. He did it, bragged about it, got away with it. Not a joke. Obama used his government protection to buy machine guns for known terrorists and drug dealers, who then used those guns to kill American citizens. Not a joke.

 

[RKMBrown]

Then let's just go ahead and call everything man does a natural right and call it a day. I mean what good are they anyway ?

Good point, and a much better question.

The point is only certain of our rights should be legislated by the federal government, that is what good they are. They are good to show and/or elevate differences between that which should be regulated and that which should not be regulated by said potentially tyrannical forces.

Look what happens when we are not paying attention. Look at the 14th amendment where the government gave itself the power to take your life, liberty, and property by due process, wherein the due process is what they say is due process. Look at the un-patriot act. We are but slaves to a government, that has declared itself our judge, jury, and conviction-er.

That will happen if we are paying attention or not. There is nothing we can do about it.

Sure there is. We can stop voting for the two headed beast. We group up and start shooting back.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nonsense. By your non sequitur there are no rights, there is no life, and nothing exists at all because all living things have a beginning and an end. Thus by your argument a thing can't exist between the beginning and end if it can't exist outside the timeline between the beginning and end.

I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.

It also means that it can't be taken away

Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right. An unalienable right cannot be taken away. It can only be infringed or denied. It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. The question is whether rights are based on something objective, like rational observation of the human condition, or subjective, like the decree of rulers. Of course they are "made up", in the sense that they are products of human thought. But so are other observational natural laws. But that doesn't make the underlying reality and less 'real'.

Again, I have to ask what you see as the practical implications of your view that natural rights are 'just made up' - specifically in regard to how we decide what basic human rights should be. Are you saying we should make no attempt to find a rational basis for rights? What should be the criteria, if not objective observation of human nature?

I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed and defined. I have the ability to do as I please. I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security. It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control.

This is about the relative authority of government, not me and you, so again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And of course it's about social control, pretty much all of morality is working on that. Why do you see that as a problem? More importantly, why do you see returning control of our rights to government as an improvement?

I mentioned this in the last post. The very act of telling me I have inalienable rights places you in a position of authority subconsciously for most humans. You are giving me something I knew I already had but you have reassured me by calling it a god given right. You have made me feel protected. Now I look to you to validate what I can and cannot do. Gee thanks I can live, be free, and occupy some space. I'm now safe and secure. I can relax. Who do I owe thanks to for this feeling of security? My ruling class for telling me so.

I dont like the phrasing on your question about returning the rights to government. They always had it. Knowing this as a fact doesn't leave me out in la la land contemplating airy things like god given or inalienable. Its all about the human potential. It puts me in a state where I can do anything within the rules or laws established by our society. I wont sit on my butt saying I have a right to something but I do have the ability to go out and get it.

 

[Asclepias]

I mentioned this before, but inalienable doesn't mean indestructible, or inviolable. It means it can't be separated. Indeed, the fact that you have to kill someone to get rid of their inalienable rights is proof of their inalienability.

It also means that it can't be taken away

Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right. An unalienable right cannot be taken away. It can only be infringed or denied. It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.

If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right. I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think. That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live. Let me pose this question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

 

[RKMBrown]

It also means that it can't be taken away

Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right. An unalienable right cannot be taken away. It can only be infringed or denied. It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.

If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right. I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think. That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live. Let me pose this question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Utter nonsense. By your argument there is only nothingness. By your argument, since anything can be destroyed nothing actually exists. Complete utter nonsense.

 

[Foxfyre]

It also means that it can't be taken away

Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right. An unalienable right cannot be taken away. It can only be infringed or denied. It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.

If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right. I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think. That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live. Let me pose this question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Our ability to live can be ended. The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed. Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed. But our right to these things cannot be taken away.

You are confusing a right with ability. They are two separate things.

 

[Asclepias]

Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right. An unalienable right cannot be taken away. It can only be infringed or denied. It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.

If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right. I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think. That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live. Let me pose this question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Utter nonsense. By your argument there is only nothingness. By your argument, since anything can be destroyed nothing actually exists. Complete utter nonsense.

No. By my argument you cease to exist along with your inalienable rights here on earth where I can see you. Nothingness would mean you never existed which is impossible because you had to exist for me to kill you.

 

[Asclepias]

Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right. An unalienable right cannot be taken away. It can only be infringed or denied. It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.

If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right. I have just proven your right to life was not so inalienable as you think. That right never existed in reality. You just happened to have the ability to live. Let me pose this question. If we have an inalienable right to life why do we die if we don't want to? I mean we have a right to live correct?

Our ability to live can be ended. The reality of our ability to think, speak etc. can be destroyed. Our ability to do what we want in our own space can be disallowed. But our right to these things cannot be taken away.

You are confusing a right with ability. They are two separate things.

I'm not the one confusing the terms. A right is man made. Ability is inherent. I have the ability to live, to be free, and to occupy some space. I do not have the right. You seem to have avoided my question at the end. Can you please address it?

 

[dblack]

I'm talking about the fact that natural rights are a man made construct. Dont yank my chain and tell me I have certain inalienable rights that you (not you personally) have observed and defined. I have the ability to do as I please. I dont need you to tell me that its ok to have life, liberty, and property. By doing that you are limiting me and lulling me into a false sense of security. It amazes me you guys don't see rights as a very effective form of social control.

This is about the relative authority of government, not me and you, so again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And of course it's about social control, pretty much all of morality is working on that. Why do you see that as a problem? More importantly, why do you see returning control of our rights to government as an improvement?

I mentioned this in the last post. The very act of telling me I have inalienable rights places you in a position of authority subconsciously for most humans. You are giving me something I knew I already had but you have reassured me by calling it a god given right. You have made me feel empowered. Now I look to you to validate what I can and cannot do. Gee thanks I can live, be free, and occupy some space. I'm now safe and secure. I can relax. Who do I owe thanks to for this feeling of security? My ruling class for telling me so.

I assume the 'you' here is referring to the later mentioned 'ruling class' (and not me), but who is that? And who put them in charge of deciding what natural rights are?

I dont like the phrasing on your question about returning the rights to government. They always had it.

No, they didn't. That's the core claim of the DOI, and exactly what natural rights does - it claims that authority for 'we the people', and our consent to be government is contingent on our government respecting that fact.

Knowing this as a fact doesn't leave me out in la la land contemplating airy things like god given or inalienable. Its all about the human potential. It puts me in a state where I can do anything within the rules or laws established by our society. I wont sit on my butt saying I have a right to something but I do have the ability to go out and get it.

Huh?

 

[dblack]

It also means that it can't be taken away

Well, I don't believe you've quite grasped the concept, but you're right. An unalienable right cannot be taken away. It can only be infringed or denied. It will still exist just as music exists if you can't hear it or beauty exists if you can't see it or you saw your shadow yesterday and have absolutely no way to prove it.

The Constitution recognizes that unalienable rights exist and its purpose is to secure them so that we all can live under the blessings of liberty.

If I kill you then I have taken your inalienable right.

No you haven't, you have only destroyed it. I mentioned this earlier. Inalienable doesn't mean indestructible. It means it can't be separated, can't be taken away. The only way you can get rid of inalienable rights is to destroy the mind that possesses them. Inalienable freedom is a trait of human intelligence, not a grant of privilege.

 

[dblack]

Let's go over the terms again. Inalienable doesn't mean "shouldn't be violated", that's what "right" means. "Inalienable right" means an "innate, inseparable freedom that shouldn't be violated".