Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

And a group of gorillas, and a pack of wolves are also social animals who make up rules and establish rights for certain behaviors within their social circles. Humans are so vain to believe they alone have learned to establish laws for behavior, and to recognize natural rights of the members.

The bolded is my whole point. Rights are granted. In the case of gorillas and wolves for example the dominant animal grants or bestows those rights. In the case of wolves for example the alpha wolf eats first. The other wolves have the ability to eat first but they dont have the right. Except I never heard a wolf call it a right. The naturalist calls it a right.

If your whole point is that wolves have rights than you have to admit that they are, by definition, natural. That would mean that you have been wrong every time you argued otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a really good group of essays on the Myth of Natural Rights-----besides being enlightening it's also pretty funny. I highly recommend it.

Natural Law, or Don?t Put a Rubber on Your Willy (Robert Anton Wilson) | The Anarchist Library

I think actual facts trump funny essays.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They all come down to one thing, you refuse to open your mind.



If we accept that definition of definitive the key word is or, as in making a choice between two or more things. Since I have already shown that morals exist in nature outside the minds of man, there is a clear argument to be made that natural rights have the same source as morals.



No it doesn't.



Yet you cannot actually demonstrate that man is the source of rights. On the other hand, there are actually morals in nature, despite your insistence that people are the only source of morals.



How is that a problem?



Prove it.



Even if the theory is incorrect that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of natural rights.



Since rights are not made by man, I don't see that as a problem.

Asclepias, you've been refuted in detail by me on every point; you've been refuted by Quantum with the quip on every point. If you would think about the essence of your objections relative to the answers you get from Quantum, you could see the realities of the matter for yourself. If you would just read my posts on the same, you would get a helping hand along the way.

It's okay to be wrong, but why do you close your mind and stay that way?

While I believe that God is behind nature and, therefore, is the One who, ultimately, endows our natural rights; one need not argue that some consciousness beyond nature would have to exist in order for us to have them. Why. Can't. You. Grasp. That?

Ironically, that God's point in terms of free will. Notwithstanding, morality is in nature. Violate it's terms and watch what happens. God demonstrates His existence in that fashion . . . not by overpowering your will and making you get real with yourself and others.

When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate. You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.

You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Ok. Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate. How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate? How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?

 

[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

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

If you make me angry I just might take away your right to breath. I will do so at a time of my choosing so when it occurs you will know I revoked your right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Not if you are delusional.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Ok. Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate. How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate? How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?

The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability. Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology. No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see. Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding.

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?

 

[Asclepias]

And a group of gorillas, and a pack of wolves are also social animals who make up rules and establish rights for certain behaviors within their social circles. Humans are so vain to believe they alone have learned to establish laws for behavior, and to recognize natural rights of the members.

The bolded is my whole point. Rights are granted. In the case of gorillas and wolves for example the dominant animal grants or bestows those rights. In the case of wolves for example the alpha wolf eats first. The other wolves have the ability to eat first but they dont have the right. Except I never heard a wolf call it a right. The naturalist calls it a right.

If your whole point is that wolves have rights than you have to admit that they are, by definition, natural. That would mean that you have been wrong every time you argued otherwise.

You must not have read the rest of my post. People established the concept of rights not wolves. I have yet to hear a wolf explain pack behavior as a system of rights. The wolves actions are an instinctual response specific to their system of social living just like ours.

 

[Asclepias]

Asclepias, you've been refuted in detail by me on every point; you've been refuted by Quantum with the quip on every point. If you would think about the essence of your objections relative to the answers you get from Quantum, you could see the realities of the matter for yourself. If you would just read my posts on the same, you would get a helping hand along the way.

It's okay to be wrong, but why do you close your mind and stay that way?

While I believe that God is behind nature and, therefore, is the One who, ultimately, endows our natural rights; one need not argue that some consciousness beyond nature would have to exist in order for us to have them. Why. Can't. You. Grasp. That?

Ironically, that God's point in terms of free will. Notwithstanding, morality is in nature. Violate it's terms and watch what happens. God demonstrates His existence in that fashion . . . not by overpowering your will and making you get real with yourself and others.

When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate. You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.

You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.

Uh...Yeah I can. Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You consider me a troll because I dont agree with you??!!! That seems pretty convenient for your argument. I'll take that as just an emotional outburst due to frustration at your inability to show me that a right exists without man defining it as a right.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Ok. Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate. How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate? How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?

The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability. Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology. No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see. Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding.

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?

Apparently this natural right to life thing is contingent on a number of variables and has a shelf life.

 

[Foxfyre]

When your argument is that god gave you those rights you have effectively removed yourself as a credible participant in this debate. You cant prove the existence of God and you know this....I hope.

You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.

Uh...Yeah I can. Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?

Who told you that you are subject to gravity? Who told you that you have a liver? A heart? A brain? That you think? That you are a jerk sometimes? That you have ability to be a thoughtful person? That you love? That you hope? That you want? That you care? Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?

Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?

 

[Asclepias]

Ok. Then what is life in your universe where in all life there is no natural rights such as the natural right to contemplate. How does life do anything without the natural right to contemplate? How did the first legal right to contemplate get granted? From what, from who?

The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability. Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology. No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see. Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding.

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?

Apparently this natural right to life thing is contingent on a number of variables and has a shelf life.

Personally I think we need to renegotiate these rights. I never agreed that my right to life had contingencies. If I had been at the bargaining table i would have specified that you age until you are 28 and then live forever at that age.

 

[dilloduck]

The right to contemplate is not a right. It is an ability. Life does things by having the ability to do so. It is an innate part of our biology. No one can grant those abilities as far as I can see. Maybe you can answer the question Dblack keeps avoiding.

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?

Apparently this natural right to life thing is contingent on a number of variables and has a shelf life.

Personally I think we need to renegotiate these rights. I never agreed that my right to life had contingencies. If I had been at the bargaining table i would have specified that you age until you are 28 and then live forever at that age.

We're gonna have to have a talk with whoever negotiated these natural rights. I want a list of all of them first. It sounds like there are a mess of them that the Constitution missed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.

 

[dilloduck]

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?

I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.

How about if a one man gives another the right to drill for oil on his land ?

 

[Asclepias]

You can't effectively prove that man created rights, yet you are willing to argue that the fact that wolves have rights somehow proves that they are man made.

Uh...Yeah I can. Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?

Who told you that you are subject to gravity? Who told you that you have a liver? A heart? A brain? That you think? That you are a jerk sometimes? That you have ability to be a thoughtful person? That you love? That you hope? That you want? That you care? Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?

Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?

I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down. Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it. I never saw my or anyone else's right to life. I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.

What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist? For that matter why is it important to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.

 

[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?

I am still waiting for you to offer a single example of anyone granting another person a natural right. Every single time you tried, I refuted you, and you then ignored my post and returned to insisting that you are right. This tactic, according to you, is the evidence that you have an open mind on the subject.

Just because you say you refuted me doesn't mean it occurred anywhere else but in your mind. Sort of like these rights we are talking about. I told you awhile back I granted you the natural right to breath. You already had the ability but just in case you lost that ability I'm giving you the right. You should feel secure that until that right is revoked you will have no problems whatsoever breathing. Any problems with breathing will let you know I'm possibly on the verge of revoking that right. Now can you show me the non-person that gave you the right to liberty?

 

[Foxfyre]

Uh...Yeah I can. Man said they exist. They made up the concept. What other entity told you that you have rights?

Who told you that you are subject to gravity? Who told you that you have a liver? A heart? A brain? That you think? That you are a jerk sometimes? That you have ability to be a thoughtful person? That you love? That you hope? That you want? That you care? Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?

Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?

I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down. Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it. I never saw my or anyone else's right to life. I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.

What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist? For that matter why is it import to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.

And are you not able to observe that people think? That they speak? That they care? That they hope? That they enjoy activties without or without others? That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish? That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have? To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that? To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?

The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind. They didn't make it up. That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way. They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.

 

[Asclepias]

Who told you that you are subject to gravity? Who told you that you have a liver? A heart? A brain? That you think? That you are a jerk sometimes? That you have ability to be a thoughtful person? That you love? That you hope? That you want? That you care? Did somebody have to think up and declare all those things in order for them to exist?

Why is it so important to you to demand that unalienable rights as defined by the great philosophers and the Founders do not exist?

I observed that I was subject to gravity on earth. Every time I jumped I came back down. Someone made up the term "gravity" and I said "oh thats what that is called". Note I was able to observe it. I never saw my or anyone else's right to life. I saw people die that obviously did not want to die.

What makes you think its important to me to say that unalienable rights do not exist? For that matter why is it import to you that they do exist? Were the founders and philosophers humans or gods? I was always under the assumption they were humans prone to corruption and all other negative things the rest of us were prone to.

And are you not able to observe that people think? That they speak? That they care? That they hope? That they enjoy activties without or without others? That they enjoy owning certain things they consider their own property to use or abuse as they wish? That to be able to go where you please and do what you want that does not interfere with others is a precious thing to have? To be who and what you are, and nobody telling you can't be that? To profess what you do and do not believe with no fear that you will be punished or hurt or killed for that?

The Founders were by no means the first to recognize and embrace a concept of such things being the natural state--the natural right--of humankind. They didn't make it up. That they embraced the concept and adopted it into their own value system and incorporated it into the Constitution under their own label of "God given" rights should not negate the principle in any way. They could have called it the Mickey Mouse phenomenon and it would still be what it is.

Yes I can observe people do those things. I call them abilities. A very dominant ability we as humans have is the ability to create concepts out of thin air and in contradiction to reality. It makes us feel safe that some all powerful entity gave us rights so we make it so. Your words painted a beautiful and stirring picture complete with harps and accompanied by a chorus. However that is just my imagination. There are no harps and no chorus. Same thing with rights. If you have the right to life why do people die that don't want to?