Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet, despite the fact that it is apparent, you keep missing it. What does that say about you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You think entirely too much of yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

No, I have rights, no matter what I think.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.

You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?

 

[Asclepias]

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.



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.

So you were afraid to tackle the question and decided to mock me for it? Why are you even debating then? Thanks for admitting you have no answer.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You think entirely too much of yourself.

Dont be threatened by my confidence. Its ugly that you have no confidence in yourself but would be afraid that I do. I'm actually a humble guy and opened to changing my position if you could only articulate your argument intelligently enough to show me where my natural rights reside separate from someone just saying so.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

No, I have rights, no matter what I think.

Prove it.

 

[RKMBrown]

What happens when two Trolls walk into a bar...

 

[dilloduck]

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.

You wanted an example of someone giving someone else a right. I gave you one.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

If man is already acting on his observable natural rights why would he need to incorporate it into his own value system. Is it not already there are you claim ?

 

[Asclepias]

dilloduck

I'm in need of some rights man. I need to drop off my suit at the cleaners. Can you take time out to grant me some rights to do that?

 

[dilloduck]

dilloduck

I'm in need of some rights man. I need to drop off my suit at the cleaners. Can you take time out to grant me some rights to do that?

no problem---I'll offer you the protection of your natural laundry rights. Go in peace. If you look around you will notice I've obviously given other people this right too because they are doing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.

The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.

You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?

Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So you were afraid to tackle the question and decided to mock me for it? Why are you even debating then? Thanks for admitting you have no answer.

No, I was mocking you for thinking that an atheist can't get past the belief that rights are endowed by God. Can you explain how that works? Is God controlling his mind? Perhaps it is aliens that are using mind control rays.

 

[dilloduck]

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?

People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.

The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.

You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?

Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.

I'll bite----how does the concept of natural rights predate history ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You think entirely too much of yourself.

Dont be threatened by my confidence. Its ugly that you have no confidence in yourself but would be afraid that I do. I'm actually a humble guy and opened to changing my position if you could only articulate your argument intelligently enough to show me where my natural rights reside separate from someone just saying so.

Misplaced confidence, aka arrogance, never threatened me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you admit you think you have rights?

No, I have rights, no matter what I think.

Prove it.

Done.

 

[Asclepias]

dilloduck

I'm in need of some rights man. I need to drop off my suit at the cleaners. Can you take time out to grant me some rights to do that?

no problem---I'll offer you the protection of your natural laundry rights. Go in peace. If you look around you will notice I've obviously given other people this right too because they are doing it.

Sweet man. I did notice you have been very busy handing out natural laundry rights. I dont know what I would do without them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You wanted an example of someone giving someone else a right. I gave you one.

Apparently you missed the word natural in my post, what a surprise.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

People also established the concept of rights. It was actually a revolutionary event when it occurred.

The concept of natural rights actually predates history, how did it revolutionize anything? Maybe you should stop pretending you actually know what you are talking about.

You love diversions! What does the concept of zero have to do with anything? People have defined existing things and non existing things. Dont you know this?

Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a diversion, it is a tactic. For example, you are the one that keeps insisting that the fact that rights is a concept described by man means that they are not natural, now you are trying to argue that the fact that man actually describes things that are real proves me wrong.

How do you know the concept of natural rights predates history? This ought to be good for some laughs.

Its merely a diversion attempting to point out flaws in anything when you have yet to answer a question I have asked.