Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[RKMBrown]

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?

Yet you DEMAND that no one has a natural right to USE THEIR ABILITIES unless they are first GRANTED THE RIGHT TO DO SO. Your argument is RIDICULOUS.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Yet you DEMAND that no one has a natural right to USE THEIR ABILITIES unless they are first GRANTED THE RIGHT TO DO SO. Your argument is RIDICULOUS.

Where did you get that idea?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

yet you demand that no one has a natural right to use their abilities unless they are first granted the right to do so. Your argument is ridiculous.

where did you get that idea?

omfg

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

How about you explain what makes that a natural right.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

No. Abilities may or may not be inherently 'natural', but abilities can be taken away or denied anybody. But rights remain just the same. I may deny you the ability to speak, but I cannot deny you the right to speak. I cannot remove your rights; I can only deny you the ability to enjoy them.

You are disingenuous though when you twist a totally secular argument into a religious one. That suggests an agenda unworthy of one who would might want to be perceived as intelligently thoughtful. But of course choice of being disingenuous or intelligently thoughtful is also an unalienable right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet, even under those circumstances, rights would still exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Oxymoron: A combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly: something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.

Entitlement: The condition of having a right to have, do, or get something.

It seems that the only problem here is still your lack of comprehension, not the actual terms being used.

 

[Asclepias]

yet you demand that no one has a natural right to use their abilities unless they are first granted the right to do so. Your argument is ridiculous.

where did you get that idea?

omfg

Thats not a legitimate answer. If you misunderstood something I wrote please quote it so I can clarify it.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

No. Abilities may or may not be inherently 'natural', but abilities can be taken away or denied anybody. But rights remain just the same. I may deny you the ability to speak, but I cannot deny you the right to speak. I cannot remove your rights; I can only deny you the ability to enjoy them.

You are disingenuous though when you twist a totally secular argument into a religious one. That suggests an agenda unworthy of one who would might want to be perceived as intelligently thoughtful. But of course choice of being disingenuous or intelligently thoughtful is also an unalienable right.

All abilities are inherent. Name me one that is not. Yes abilities can be taken away but so can rights. Matter of fact your right can be taken away far easier than your ability. If you deny me the right to speak I can still exercise my ability to speak and suffer the consequences.

Claiming I am being disingenuous smacks of frustration. Lets be more adult in this debate because I would rather see you present some proof instead of leaving the debate angry. I could easily get frustrated that everyone has avoided my question concerning the right to life. If we have a right to life why do people die before they want to?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

If we don't have a right to life, why are we born before we are granted the right to life by the government, or whatever entity that it is you think grants rights?

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.

The discussion of God is irrelevant to the concept of natural rights, just like it is for evolution. The fact that you continue to go back to an irrelevant point in an attempt to prove that you are right actually has the opposite result of what you want.

That said, how does equipping something equal granting something? God may be perfectly capable setting up the rules that allow things to happen without having to intervene simply because you lack the ability to conceptualize how He does it. Unless, of course, you think gravity is a right because God thought of it.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying.

Yet you keep repeating the same ridiculous assertion that you are right without actually supplying any evidence to back up your position.

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.

You believe that a person who doesn't believe in God believes that rights were granted by God? How, exactly, do you think that works?

 

[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

Oxymoron: A combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly: something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements.

Entitlement: The condition of having a right to have, do, or get something.

It seems that the only problem here is still your lack of comprehension, not the actual terms being used.

Depends on which definition suits your argument doesn't it? Your definition sends you in a loop. Use a definition that doesn't create logic loops. You would look a little more intelligent.

Entitlement:

the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The third option would be more viable as an alternative if you didn't routinely ignore the fact that multiple people have answered your questions in detail, yet you keep insisting that your questions are unanswered. That is why I keep pointing out that you are close minded.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That almost sounded like a threat. The problem with that is that you never actually gave me the right to breathe, and are incapable of taking it away, even if you actually tried to prove that killing me is taking away my rights.

 

[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?

If we don't have a right to life, why are we born before we are granted the right to life by the government, or whatever entity that it is you think grants rights?



The discussion of God is irrelevant to the concept of natural rights, just like it is for evolution. The fact that you continue to go back to an irrelevant point in an attempt to prove that you are right actually has the opposite result of what you want.

That said, how does equipping something equal granting something? God may be perfectly capable setting up the rules that allow things to happen without having to intervene simply because you lack the ability to conceptualize how He does it. Unless, of course, you think gravity is a right because God thought of it.

I am definitely listening to what you guys are saying.

Yet you keep repeating the same ridiculous assertion that you are right without actually supplying any evidence to back up your position.

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.

You believe that a person who doesn't believe in God believes that rights were granted by God? How, exactly, do you think that works?

Asking me a question is not an answer to my question. Answer my question then I will tackle the logic in your question. If you cant or wont answer my question I will have to assume you are this point trolling because you don't want to admit you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

People also established the concept of zero. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred. Does that mean that it isn't actually real?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

The third option would be more viable as an alternative if you didn't routinely ignore the fact that multiple people have answered your questions in detail, yet you keep insisting that your questions are unanswered. That is why I keep pointing out that you are close minded.

Its pretty apparent when someone answers a question. The reference the topic in the question and answer it. They don't ask me a question in response to my question. They dont write a dissertation explaining the price of clam chowder. That would be avoiding the question I posed because you know you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I didn't need to be told that I have rights anyomore than I had to be told I can think.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

That almost sounded like a threat. The problem with that is that you never actually gave me the right to breathe, and are incapable of taking it away, even if you actually tried to prove that killing me is taking away my rights.

Anything to divert from your inability to answer the question? If you truly believed that I apologize for frightening you. I'm pretty sure you can go back and find the proof where I granted you the right to breath.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

If we don't have a right to life, why are we born before we are granted the right to life by the government, or whatever entity that it is you think grants rights?



The discussion of God is irrelevant to the concept of natural rights, just like it is for evolution. The fact that you continue to go back to an irrelevant point in an attempt to prove that you are right actually has the opposite result of what you want.

That said, how does equipping something equal granting something? God may be perfectly capable setting up the rules that allow things to happen without having to intervene simply because you lack the ability to conceptualize how He does it. Unless, of course, you think gravity is a right because God thought of it.



Yet you keep repeating the same ridiculous assertion that you are right without actually supplying any evidence to back up your position.

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.

You believe that a person who doesn't believe in God believes that rights were granted by God? How, exactly, do you think that works?

Asking me a question is not an answer to my question. Answer my question then I will tackle the logic in your question. If you cant or wont answer my question I will have to assume you are this point trolling because you don't want to admit you are wrong.

Just an FYI, I was mocking you in the form of a question, not asking you a question.

 

[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?

I didn't need to be told that I have rights anyomore than I had to be told I can think.

So you admit you think you have rights?