Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[MaryL]

Hmm. No. Rights are totally man made. No right to bare arms, no right to vote. Intellectual exercises. No right to free speech, no entitlements, nada tomata. I see an old man and a dog run down in the street , without note..., I am thinking how vile America has become. Every made up thing or cause has rights. Nothing makes that apparent than "Gay Rights". Sickening.

 

[Asclepias]

No problem.



Did you see that? Dblack is an atheist and has never said that rights come from God, yet you think he cannot get past the concept that rights come from God.

If you ever learn to read you might actually make sense, as it is you sound just as deluded as Ken Hamm.

Yes I did see you lie again. I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God? Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?

Excuse me, genius, how is telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God not telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God?

Its not. I asked you to post were I said it. Can you you do that or is that just what you wanted it to mean? Remember if you make up a post I will report you simply for being a liar. I want to see where I said the words you claim I said. You should be able to quote them along with your claim.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The definition of natural rights has been destroyed over and over

Of course that claim is ridiculous. Quite the opposite has occurred.

Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?

Do you have about an hour to read? We have argued the matter from top to bottom; you're responses are not normal.

Is it possibility that you're not reading the posts of others or are not really thinking about the matter.

I hesitate to think that you are stupid given your insight about the nature of my error in the above.

Are you trolling?

Look, sometimes I go to this board when I'm trying to hammer out a piece on a complex topic for my blog. Intellectual adversity is useful as it helps one clarify and justified my thoughts and ideas, get rid of the garbage, like what I wrote in the above. LOL! Wouldn't want that on my blog. So it makes no difference to me either way. I don't care if I'm being trolled. I' benefit immensely from adversity, real or feigned. This is productive for me . . . but what are you getting out of this?

I'm just curious as I don't have the kind of time you apparently have to waste.

 

[Asclepias]

Every single question you raised has been answered in the thread. The fact that you are unwilling to actually read the thread is not proof that the answers are not there.

I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link. Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?

Keep telling yourself that.

I want you to tell me the answer. Are you afraid to answer the question? There are now 2 questions you are avoiding.

If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?

How do you know the concept of natural rights pre-date history?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here. Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand. There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course that claim is ridiculous. Quite the opposite has occurred.

Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?

Do you have about an hour to read? We have argued the matter from top to bottom; you're responses are not normal.

Is it possibility that you're not reading the posts of others or are not really thinking about the matter.

I hesitate to think that you are stupid given your insight about the nature of my error in the above.

Are you trolling?

Look, sometimes I go to this board when I'm trying to hammer out a piece on a complex topic for my blog. Intellectual adversity is useful as it helps one clarify and justified my thoughts and ideas, get rid of the garbage, like what I wrote in the above. LOL! Wouldn't want that on my blog. So it makes no difference to me either way. I don't care if I'm being trolled. I' benefit immensely from adversity, real or feigned. This is productive for me . . . but what are you getting out of this?

I'm just curious as I don't have the kind of time you apparently have to waste.

Maybe if you could be wrong quicker you would have more time. The amount of words you use when attempting to make a point doesn't get you extra credit or anything. We can do anything we want with our time. No need for rights.
Look ma---no rights !

 

[Asclepias]

Do you have a new definition that you wanna try ?

Do you have about an hour to read? We have argued the matter from top to bottom; you're responses are not normal.

Is it possibility that you're not reading the posts of others or are not really thinking about the matter.

I hesitate to think that you are stupid given your insight about the nature of my error in the above.

Are you trolling?

Look, sometimes I go to this board when I'm trying to hammer out a piece on a complex topic for my blog. Intellectual adversity is useful as it helps one clarify and justified my thoughts and ideas, get rid of the garbage, like what I wrote in the above. LOL! Wouldn't want that on my blog. So it makes no difference to me either way. I don't care if I'm being trolled. I' benefit immensely from adversity, real or feigned. This is productive for me . . . but what are you getting out of this?

I'm just curious as I don't have the kind of time you apparently have to waste.

Maybe if you could be wrong quicker you would have more time. The amount of words you use when attempting to make a point doesn't get you extra credit or anything. We can do anything we want with our time. No need for rights.
Look ma---no rights !

 

[dilloduck]

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here. Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand. There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.

The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?

 

[Asclepias]

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here. Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand. There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.

Yes abilities and inalienable rights are 2 seperate things. Abilities exist. Inalienable rights do not. You can tell the entire concept is bogus due to the wording. It was an honorable attempt at protecting people but lets not kid ourselves into believing they really exist.

 

[dilloduck]

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here. Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand. There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.

Yes abilities and inalienable rights are 2 seperate things. Abilities exist. Inalienable rights do not. You can tell the entire concept is bogus due to the wording. It was an honorable attempt at protecting people but lets not kid ourselves into believing they really exist.

Linda Ronstadt no longer has her "unalienable right" to sing. Seems as though she can eat OK tho.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ? Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed.

Thank you for your admission.
This, of course, means you haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now in response to the substance: Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others

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.

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 ?

Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better: "What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.

To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something new—or should I say old?—the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law. The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or nature, if you prefer) and man: wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment. The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.

Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universally—by all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them. Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction. Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man. In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as the dignities of man, the prerogatives of man, the entitlements of man; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men by man.

Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence. From murder to involuntary servitude proper: these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human. The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners. The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.

Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it? Does it makes sense to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so if I claim I was violated by a unicorn that means they exist ? Again----merely claiming something exists doesn't make it so. Claiming you have something does not mean you have it.

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The definition of natural rights has been destroyed over and over

Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.

 

[dilloduck]

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed.

Thank you for your admission.
This, of course, means you haven't a leg to stand on.

Editing my post and then attempting to claim some victory ? That's a pretty cheap tactic don't you think ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes I did see you lie again. I asked you to post where I said anything about I thought an atheist cant get past the belief that rights are endowed by God? Please bold those words or is it that those are your words?

Excuse me, genius, how is telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God not telling an atheist that he is hung up on rights coming from God?

Its not. I asked you to post were I said it. Can you you do that or is that just what you wanted it to mean? Remember if you make up a post I will report you simply for being a liar. I want to see where I said the words you claim I said. You should be able to quote them along with your claim.

I know, the fact that you actually told an atheist that he was hung up on the idea that rights come from God doesn't actually mean you believe that, it is actually evidence that you were lying. I can accept that if that is your position.

 

[dilloduck]

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The definition of natural rights has been destroyed over and over

Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.

It's a term so old that you can't even define it or enumerate them.

 

[Asclepias]

Now in response to the substance: Or what dilloduck doesn't know, but would know if he were actually reading and thinking about the posts of others

The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell

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 ?

Those are good questions, but with regard to the central concerns of the OP, the question that Aurelius famously asked is better: "What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

Natural law is the term used since Augustine to denote the natural morality that is at the very least universally binding in human consciousness and, therefore, in human conduct and human interaction.

To the best of my knowledge, unless archeologists have recently uncovered something new—or should I say old?—the earliest known adumbrations of significance touching on their correlates and corollaries, respectively, are expressed in the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hammurabic Code and Mosaic Law. The latter two are the most explicit in this respect, and in Mosaic Law, of course, we find the earliest recorded expressions in formal law of the proper sociopolitical relationship between God (or nature, if you prefer) and man: wherein we have the first explicit expression in history of innate rights in terms of inalienability, that is to say, in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper since Augustine, with the modern culmination of the construct being propounded by the political philosophers of the Enlightenment. The two most significant works from the latter with regard to the founding sociopolitical ethos of America are those of Locke and Sydney . . . in that order.

Concerning Mosaic Law, what I mean in the above by the phrase in the exact sense as it is expressed in natural law proper: this is the first time in recorded history that the innate rights of man are declared to apply universally—by all that which is right and just in opposition to the pagan's historical treatment of them. Again, what one must understand about natural law is that it is the natural morality of humanity, which is immediately apprehended by all and, not surprisingly, is further evinced by the extant fact and history of human conduct and human interaction. Ultimately, while it's important that we see them written on stones or papyrus, the most important thing is that it's written on man's heart.

"What is the essence of the thing?" What is it, really?

The imperatives of natural morality have always been recognized by man; the empirical substance of them in terms of the material rewards of observing them or the repercussions of violating them have always been felt by man. In history, the innate rights of man have been variously referred to as the dignities of man, the prerogatives of man, the entitlements of man; but they haven't always been universally applied to all men by man.

Notwithstanding, in history, as man can no more evade the forces of natural morality than he can sprout wings and fly away to Mars, there has always been some official pretext or another for the violation of innate rights that in fact demonstrates their existence. From murder to involuntary servitude proper: these things have been perpetrated by governments against the imperatives of natural morality under the guise of defensive force or by decreeing the victims of these things to be something less than human. The other common pretext is the corrupt assertion that they need not be respected by governments in the case foreigners. The pretexts for tyranny and atrocity effectively concede the actuality of innate rights.

Do you see the actual substance of it, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of it? Does it makes sense to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just told you I don't see the answer. Provide a link. Dont you stand behind your words or is it you contradicted yourself in it and you dont want me to call you on yet another gaffe?

Keep telling yourself that.

I want you to tell me the answer. Are you afraid to answer the question? There are now 2 questions you are avoiding.

If we have a natural right to life why do we die before we want to?

How do you know the concept of natural rights pre-date history?

I already answered that question, go back and reread my posts.

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing here changes the fact that if something is destroyed, it, necessarily, must first exist.
You keep dancing around that absolutism - for good reason, of course.

Of course it must exist to be destroyed. The definition of natural rights has been destroyed over and over

Really? The only destruction I have seen is when people who insist that natural rights do not exist attempt to redefine a term that has an accepted definition that is actually older than they are.

I guess since the definition was accepted that makes it right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again there is a melding of abilities and unalienable rights here. Those are two separate things.

Under unalienable rights as the Founders defined those, there is an absolute right to be gay, to be straight, to be religious, to be non religious, to be industrious, to be lazy, to sing, to be silent, to be tolerant, to be intolerant, to be open minded, to be kind, to be bigoted or prejudiced, so long as no contribution or participation is required from any other.

There is no unalienable right to be respected, appreciated, liked, or for others to appreciate or like or acknowledge who or what we are or the choices we make--that requires contribution or participation by others which is not our right to demand. There is only the unalienable right to be left alone in peace to be who we are and do what we do in our own space.

The founding fathers felt very strongly that certain behaviors should be protected by the government so they named a few. They even erroneously called them unalienable which sounds really good-----it's just inaccurate. Those behaviors can all be taken away and they knew it. Why bother protecting something if it is already so sacred that it can't be violated ?

Yet you have not provided a single example of that occurring.