Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

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.

Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.

 

[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.

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.

He and I both did. You just refuse to see it because it hurts you to be wrong even a little bit.

 

[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.

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.

Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I cannot enumerate all the elements either, does that prove they do not exist?

 

[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.

Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?

I already answered that. Go back and read. Only your question is bogus and immaterial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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?

I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I guess that the fact that you believe that words mean something else proves it is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.

If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.

 

[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



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?

I see that you are finally admitting that the actual problem is your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that you don't already have the answers.

Wrong again. The more you and the Rambling Writer stall the more I am convinced you don't have the intelligence to supply the answer. You specifically transparently lie and avoid answering questions. The Rambling Writer puts people to sleep attempting to complicate something that is simple.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

So that's why you folks are so against the concept of natural rights? You want to do harm to people like gays?

Nice.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Devine Right of Kings

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 ?

As for the theory of the divine right of kings, actually, I touched on that very thing in this thread, so, no, I haven't forgotten about the divine right of kings. But perhaps you're raising the matter again for reasons you have yet to make clear.

Recall:

That is factually inaccurate. The term Democracy is from the ancient Greek where all citizens had a vote to elect the leaders of their city states. The Athenian democracy was even more direct where all citizens voted on the laws themselves.

The Magna Carta written in 1215 is the basis for the Constitution and many of the concepts stem from there. The Constitution itself was written in 1787 and had been in effect for 60 years by the time Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848. Self governance was also in effect in France during most of that period too.

Correct, and the Assizes of Henry II before that, all forming the foundation of the Constitution, all acknowledging the fact of inalienable rights, well over six hundred years before the advent of the Founding Document.

Declaring that inalienable rights exist does not make it so. It is a concept that was invented basically to contest the divine right of kings. We have no such rights.

I wrote the following, now pasted and copied, under that:

Actually, the idea of natural rights predates the Magna Carta and the Assize of Clarendon as well. The term for it in natural law proper is merely the latest historical iteration of it. It may be safely inferred that they go all the way back to the dawn of man. In history, the innate rights—essentially, life, liberty and private property—have been called, variously, the human dignities, the human prerogatives, the human entitlements and the natural rights of man.

The theory of the divine right of kings goes back almost as far under one banner or another, for example, the notion of the god-emperor. Specifically, the former is the idea that monarchs are not subject to any earthly authority as they derive their just right of rule directly from God—officially reasserted in history by the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century monarchs of England and France. The god-emperor version is the same idea, except for the caveat regarding derivation; but, also, to be fair, unlike the pagan version of it, the monarchical version is predicated on the Deity of Christianity. Hence, this didn't mean that the king could do just whatever he pleased. Not being God himself, he was still accountable to divine authority.

It is the inalienable right of revolt, extrapolated from Judeo-Christianity's ethical system thought as it touches on the abomination of statist idolatry verses true religious liberty, that was finally and formally asserted in natural law proper against the supposed divine right of kings and, by the way, against theocracy: God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights; hence, no monarchical or theocratic despot may legitimately declare himself to be the mediator between God and man. Kings have no absolute, divinely endowed right to rule. The political anthem that every man is the king of his own castle and the construct of the separation of church and state derive from the right of revolt in the face of despotic monarchies/theocracies.
__________________________________


I hope that's helpful. But, again, why did you ask? What's your point exactly? Also, I would like to know if you see the actual substance of natural law, the rational and empirical nuts and bolts of itt, not as you would have it, but as it is presented?

 

[Asclepias]

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

Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.

If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.

I would take you up on the bet but I know you will try to weasel your way out of it. You simply have no shame in your lying and no moral conviction as a man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He and I both did. You just refuse to see it because it hurts you to be wrong even a little bit.

The fact you can claim that unalienable rights are taken away doesn't actually prove that they are take away are taken away. Show me that unalienable rights are actually alienable by showing an example of them being transferred to another person, granted to anyone in the first place, or actually taken away by any entity.

 

[Asclepias]

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

He and I both did. You just refuse to see it because it hurts you to be wrong even a little bit.

The fact you can claim that unalienable rights are taken away doesn't actually prove that they are take away are taken away. Show me that unalienable rights are actually alienable by showing an example of them being transferred to another person, granted to anyone in the first place, or actually taken away by any entity.

Provide the answers to my questions and i will gladly answer yours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?

I already answered that. Go back and read. Only your question is bogus and immaterial.

Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results

Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

So that's why you folks are so against the concept of natural rights? You want to do harm to people like gays?

Nice.

I have no problem with gay people. I just don't pretend me being straight is a right nor do I pretend them being gay is a right. Its no ones business what your sexuality is. Also I'm not against the concept. I just give it no validity since no one can prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah somehow I knew you would say that. Somehow the answers to those specific questions are not showing up on my computer.

If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.

I would take you up on the bet but I know you will try to weasel your way out of it. You simply have no shame in your lying and no moral conviction as a man.

You would actually stop posting on the board if I bring up the post where I answered you? How about if I point out the post where you directly replied to my answer and then claimed I didn't answer your question because I didn't actually answer a different question that I answered?

 

[Asclepias]

Is the fact that you do not understand quantum mechanics proof that quantum mechanics is bogus?

I already answered that. Go back and read. Only your question is bogus and immaterial.

Someone asked you about quantum mechanics? And you actually answered? Can you explain how that is possible when the search function for this thread only brings up the term 4 times, and the only response you made to any of the mentions is this post?

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results

Did I forget to mention that I know how to use search?

I was mocking you. Remember that one?

 

[Asclepias]

If I go back and actually pull up the post where I directly answered the question will you resign from the board? If not, I see no reason to do so because I have no need to prove to you I said something I actually said.

I would take you up on the bet but I know you will try to weasel your way out of it. You simply have no shame in your lying and no moral conviction as a man.

You would actually stop posting on the board if I bring up the post where I answered you? How about if I point out the post where you directly replied to my answer and then claimed I didn't answer your question because I didn't actually answer a different question that I answered?

If you were honorable I would. However, you forget I have caught you lying before and you just deny it. If you had any sort of gumption about yourself you would post the answer but we all know you are incapable of being honest. Also remember I will check your post to see if it was edited. Put up or....well you know the rest.

 

[dblack]

There are actually worthwhile criticisms of natural rights theory. The dumb and dumber shtick going on here is just trolling.