Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Foxfyre]

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?

Yes we have a right to life as the Founders and those who first concluded that there was a concept of natural rights. Gravity exists whether anybody even thinks about it. It doesn't exist because somebody thought it up. Human yearnings, imagination, hope, ambition, and desire exist whether or not anybody acknowledges them or understands them or is even specifically aware of them. They don't exist because somebody declared that they exist.

The Founders decreed that nobody was free, that there was no liberty, unless natural (aka unalienable or God-given) rights were acknowledged and protected. They were determined to forge a nation in which natural rights would be acknowledged and protected so that the people could enjoy the blessings of liberty.

Whatever we are and whatever we do that does not violate another's rights and requires no contribution or participation by any other is a natural right. That is what the condition is called just as a squirrel is called a squirrel or a bird is called a bird. The fact that humans gave such things a 'name' or 'label' and different people call them different things does not change what they are.

 

[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.

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.

Can you repeat that louder for the board? I agree it only exists in the human mind. Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Yes we have a right to life as the Founders and those who first concluded that there was a concept of natural rights. Gravity exists whether anybody even thinks about it. It doesn't exist because somebody thought it up. Human yearnings, imagination, hope, ambition, and desire exist whether or not anybody acknowledges them or understands them or is even specifically aware of them. They don't exist because somebody declared that they exist.

The Founders decreed that nobody was free, that there was no liberty, unless natural (aka unalienable or God-given) rights were acknowledged and protected. They were determined to forge a nation in which natural rights would be acknowledged and protected so that the people could enjoy the blessings of liberty.

Whatever we are and whatever we do that does not violate another's rights and requires no contribution or participation by any other is a natural right. That is what the condition is called just as a squirrel is called a squirrel or a bird is called a bird. The fact that humans gave such things a 'name' or 'label' and different people call them different things does not change what they are.

You still avoided my 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?

Its great the founders told us something that was pretty evident already. The fact that they told me it was a right instead of just how things are still puts them in the position of authority. Words are important. If you define a word such as "right" to be an entitlement that means it must be bestowed, granted, or given. Who is giving this right? If it is a concept as you just admitted then the people coming up with this concept are the ones granting the rights. The air does not grant rights people do. This is a very important distinction. If the definition of right did not define that it was an entitlement and instead it meant ability I would have no issue. As it is since no one can prove a creator gave us the right then why would you believe you even have it?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

So we just look to see what people think or do and claim that to be a natural right ?
How about jumping-----is jumping a natural right ?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

and it was men who wrote the Constitution that makes the claim that these rights exist. Again---a man made concept. If humans did not exist neither would the concept of rights.

 

[Asclepias]

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".

Inalienable:

adjective
1.
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Right:
noun
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.



Inalienable right = oxymoron

 

[dblack]

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.

Can you repeat that louder for the board?

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?

I agree it only exists in the human mind. Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.

It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, or are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Can you repeat that louder for the board?

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?

I agree it only exists in the human mind. Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.

It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the 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?

Endow means to equip or supply. If a creator is equipping or supplying me with something that creator is now giving or granting me something.

Innate means inborn or natural. No equipping or supplying mentioned there.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

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".

Inalienable:

adjective
1.
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Right:
noun
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Inalienable right = oxymoron

Now do the honorable thing and google the definition for unalienable rights. and please post them. The Declaration used the term 'unalienable' that can be used interchangeably with 'inalienable'.

The first definition Bing came up with under 'Unalienable rights defined' was this (and there are lots and lots more):

UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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 to 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

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

"Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

("[T]he Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations." SANDIN v. CONNER, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)

In the second article of the Declaration of Rights, which was made part of the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is declared: 'That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought or of right can be compelled, to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent; nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be, vested in, or assumed, by any power whatever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.' (Dec. of Rights, Art. 2.). . . (The Judge then read the 1st. 8th. and 11th articles of the Declaration of Rights; and the 9th. and 46th sections of the Constitution of Pennsylvania. See 1 Vol. Dall. Edit. Penn. Laws p. 55. 6. 60. in the Appendix.) From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)

I had thought it self-evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with liberty as one of the cardinal unalienable rights. It is that basic freedom which the Due Process Clause protects, rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. . . It demeans the holding in Morrissey - more importantly it demeans the concept of liberty itself - to ascribe to that holding nothing more than a protection of an interest that the State has created through its own prison regulations. For if the inmate's protected liberty interests are no greater than the State chooses to allow, he is really little more than the slave described in the 19th century cases. I think it clear that even the inmate retains an unalienable interest in liberty - at the very minimum the right to be treated with dignity - which the Constitution may never ignore. MEACHUM v. FANO, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) . . . .

Unalienable Rights Defined

 

[dblack]

Can you repeat that louder for the board?

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?

I agree it only exists in the human mind. Yes it is a grant of privilege if it is endowed. These rights are endowed by our creator which means they are granted or given.

It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the 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?

You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind.

Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everything you need to know about natural law and natural rights, and the misunderstandings typically alleged by leftists about them. . . .

The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

Note: The use of the term freedom in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term civil liberty, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature. They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be. The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement: the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-71.html#post8902898

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 94 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-87.html#post8910157

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-94.html#post8914725

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-86.html#post8909910

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915369

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915433

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 96 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

___________________________________________________________

Master these things and you will be an expert, not only on natural law, but the way of reality itself.

Since the dawn of man ? Really ? What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?

By definition, divine rights are unnatural.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?



It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the 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?

You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind.

Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.

This is why I generally prhase it as 'unalienable/natural/God-given' rights, any of which can be used interchangeably. It is my effort to affirm that such rights exist whether or not one believes in God.

Many of the great philosophers who first recognized the concept were not at all religious or at least they did not associate such rights with God. Those who were religious, and who believe God to be the source of all things, would of course have been more prone to attach the concept of "God given" to the definition.

Just as there was no word for 'gravity' before Sir Isaac Newton reasoned that such a thing existed, there was no term for 'unalienable rights' before people began to reason that such things exist. But just as gravity existed before anybody thought about it or gave it a name, so did unalienable rights. And gravity would still exist if somebody called it by a different term or name. And so do unalienable rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".

I call it a natural right, because it is. That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.

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

How do you explain ghosts?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

What inalienable rights? Make up your mind, they exist or don't.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Yes we have a right to life as the Founders and those who first concluded that there was a concept of natural rights. Gravity exists whether anybody even thinks about it. It doesn't exist because somebody thought it up. Human yearnings, imagination, hope, ambition, and desire exist whether or not anybody acknowledges them or understands them or is even specifically aware of them. They don't exist because somebody declared that they exist.

The Founders decreed that nobody was free, that there was no liberty, unless natural (aka unalienable or God-given) rights were acknowledged and protected. They were determined to forge a nation in which natural rights would be acknowledged and protected so that the people could enjoy the blessings of liberty.

Whatever we are and whatever we do that does not violate another's rights and requires no contribution or participation by any other is a natural right. That is what the condition is called just as a squirrel is called a squirrel or a bird is called a bird. The fact that humans gave such things a 'name' or 'label' and different people call them different things does not change what they are.

You still avoided my 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?

Its great the founders told us something that was pretty evident already. The fact that they told me it was a right instead of just how things are still puts them in the position of authority. Words are important. If you define a word such as "right" to be an entitlement that means it must be bestowed, granted, or given. Who is giving this right? If it is a concept as you just admitted then the people coming up with this concept are the ones granting the rights. The air does not grant rights people do. This is a very important distinction. If the definition of right did not define that it was an entitlement and instead it meant ability I would have no issue. As it is since no one can prove a creator gave us the right then why would you believe you even have it?

You are confusing natural right to life with natural ability to defend oneself from being killed by an armed mob of murderous federal agents. IOW you are continuing your pursuit of this completely nonsensical argument of yours that rights have to not only be granted but also defended and agreed upon by all humans and be irrefutably indestructible to the end of all time to perfectly ensure that no granted right is ever broken or modified by anyone not even by an act of god or other hap-instance. I can only assume you to be, in this case, nothing more than a Troll.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.


We don't need no stinking badges!

No. There is no religious agenda to calling certain rights natural or inalienable. However some people may have a religious agenda to have power over certain rights legal rights that can be given or taken away, such as the legal right to abort babies and the legal right to force people to pay for said abortions.

So why do so many Libertarians use the term "Natural Law?" Simply, it gives them the means by which to elevate their opinions, dogmas, and prejudices to a metaphysical level where nobody will dare to criticise or even think about them. The term smacks of religion, where "Natural Law" has replaced "God's Law." The latter fiction gave the priest power over believers. "Natural Law" is designed to give the Libertarian ideologist power over the people that he or she wants to rule.

F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?

You have a bunch of philosophy, I have science.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

What inalienable rights? Make up your mind, they exist or don't.

They don't exist. I should have quoted them so you could detect the sarcasm. My bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?



It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the 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?

You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.. . . .

And you just identified one of the most annoying things about message boards.

As has been discussed, all of us at some time have arrived at the absolutely terrible moment in a spirited discussion in which we realize the other person is right and we are wrong. And how hard is it to admit that?

But the person who is right will be able to continue to present the evident or evidence. The other may or may not be mature enough to acknowledge it.

Or he/she will ignore it and stubbornly insist that his/her point of view is the only valid one.

Or will deflect with tactics like ignoring any rebuttal to points made and especially by ignoring the answers to the same question asked over and over and over. (Now I'm pondering if that is included in the Alinksky method. . . oh well, not important.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

So far no one has taken away any of my rights, despite one person insisting that he, personally, granted them to me.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you think it would help? All caps maybe?



It's not a 'grant', it's an innate trait of the human mind. It's based on free will, our capacity for volition. Have you really thought about what we're saying, you are you just hung up on the religious reference? As far as the 'god talk' goes, it makes sense for people who believe in God to characterize the idea of innate traits as 'endowed by the creator', but that's just a turn of phrase. It doesn't really effect the argument. Certainly not in the way you're using it.

This is the 3rd time you have avoided the 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?

You've just been avoiding the answer. I'm not going to bother repeating it. I suspect even a copy and paste would be wasted effort. Scroll up.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying. The more you say however, convinces me that you have faith that something gave you these things instead of them being there as a product of biology. I think you error when you say that 'endowed by the creator' is just a turn of phrase. It has implications and is not objective in its effect on the human mind.

Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't use that phrase. And it's completely unnecessary for the argument. So I'm not sure what 'effect' it's having on my mind.

Listen, I hate to go there - mostly because it's sorta rude - but I find myself trying to decide if you're being stupid or stubborn. They're often indistinguishable, but if I'm thinking that way, it's far past time to bow out of the conversation. It was 'interesting', nonetheless, and I think prompted a lot of useful clarification of the inalienable/natural rights concept.

I scrolled up and do not see the answer to my question. Please help me see your answer to the question I put to you.

There is a 3rd option to your question on if I am being stubborn or stupid. Have you considered the possibility that you just happen to be wrong? That would keep you from being rude. I would hate for you to bow out of the conversation before you provided proof that something invisible gave us a set of entitlements.