Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Foxfyre]

Why don't you simple say your point in 2-3 concise sentences? Real talk you sound like you have no friends. Its better to appear impressed than be impressive.

There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write. I don't write to impress. I write to think and learn and share. Projecting? So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours. That's all.

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board. I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends. We all do, I hope. That's what makes the world go around. LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too. Sure. If that's what you all prefer. Why not? I'm talking to you now.
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief. Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that? So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point! Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible. I don't know how to do that. Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum? You mentioned quantum physics.


Real question. How is it done?

Maybe I misjudged you. I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all. I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that. IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong. Maybe we can give that topic a go as well. if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for. I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints. I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.

Thank you for this. You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.

The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense. It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.

It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.

I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity. But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.

But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.

THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.​

 

[Asclepias]

Again that is a disingenuous characterization of what is being argued.

Nobody has said rights cannot be violated. Several of us have stated again and again and again in various ways that the function of the federal government is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights; i.e. defend such rights from those who would violate them, so that the people are free to live their lives as they choose an not how some authority chooses for them.

But the fact that rights can be violated/infringed does not do away with the right itself.

Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated? To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten". How can something so important be so worthless?

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated? To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten". How can something so important be so worthless?

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.

So you concede that they can't be taken or transferred. So now separated is you new word. How can one be separated from one's rights?

Are you making a theological argument?

 

[dilloduck]

There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write. I don't write to impress. I write to think and learn and share. Projecting? So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours. That's all.

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board. I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends. We all do, I hope. That's what makes the world go around. LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too. Sure. If that's what you all prefer. Why not? I'm talking to you now.
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief. Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that? So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point! Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible. I don't know how to do that. Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum? You mentioned quantum physics.


Real question. How is it done?

Maybe I misjudged you. I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all. I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that. IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong. Maybe we can give that topic a go as well. if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for. I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints. I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.

Thank you for this. You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.

The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense. It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.

It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.

I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity. But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.

But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.

THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.​

What dichotomy ? Unalienable rights simply do not exist for the simple reason that unalienable means they can't be taken away.
It's not a twist of semantics. It's as plain as day.

 

[dilloduck]

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.

So you concede that they can't be taken or transferred. So now separated is you new word. How can one be separated from one's rights?

Are you making a theological argument?

look up the word in any common dictionary---there are several synonyms given to define the word. Separated is not MY word----it's simply another word used to describe what "unalienable" means. It's a great word and I understand people feel it's important because it's in the Constitution but it means what it means.
It is something that cannot be taken away, transferred by or separated from the owner.

 

[Asclepias]

There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write. I don't write to impress. I write to think and learn and share. Projecting? So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours. That's all.

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board. I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends. We all do, I hope. That's what makes the world go around. LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too. Sure. If that's what you all prefer. Why not? I'm talking to you now.
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief. Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that? So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point! Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible. I don't know how to do that. Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum? You mentioned quantum physics.


Real question. How is it done?

Maybe I misjudged you. I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all. I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that. IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong. Maybe we can give that topic a go as well. if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for. I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints. I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.

The essence of knowing that the imperatives of natural morality are self-evident is knowing that the imperatives of human consciousness are absolute. You've just conceded that they are absolute.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

If not, then let me ask you this: What would constitute proof for you?

Look, in the above you asked me a specific question, but I don't think you realize that the question you asked about "natural rights" was actually more complex than the one you thought you had asked.

If you won't hear the pertinent history that you might see the reoccurring historical themes of natural morality. . . .

In any event, I have two to three more posts of medium length, a bone to pick with Quantum and another that clearly demonstrates their existence. But if you won't ask about or discuss points then. . . .

The matter is simple enough; only relativists make it more complex than it need be.

Absolutism is about the concrete, not the abstract.

Please explain what you mean by absolute. I hope I have the specific meaning in that you mean a universal truth. I dont see where I conceded that anything was absolute about the human consciousness except mans capacity to create things out of mid air. The fact that man does that is self evident but that does not make the creations themselves self evident. The 3rd mind is a concept not a fact. Me using it does not mean I would argue its existence with anyone. Does that make sense to you?

Short of you supplying me proof another conscious entity exists that gave us these rights I dont see how you can prove it. Do you?

Its not that I wont hear the pertinent history. Ive heard it before. I just dont think it applies. In the end it is a concept humans made up. Labeling the rights as inalienable or natural simply attempts to put them out of reach in the minds of the people. It is a tool of social control. i define you some vague rights via the air and then say I am protecting them for you from "those bad people". I just garnered your support and insured your submission to me because i am protecting you.

Even absolutism depends on the abstract. You still have to convince the people to accept a concept.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Where is that being disingenuous? This is really bugging me. I'm going to let go my belief that the term is an oxymoron. So if you have this inalienable right what good is it if it can be violated? To me that is like walking amongst a pride of lions with a sign that says "I have the right to not be eaten". How can something so important be so worthless?

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

 

[dilloduck]

Maybe I misjudged you. I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all. I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that. IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong. Maybe we can give that topic a go as well. if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for. I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints. I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.

The essence of knowing that the imperatives of natural morality are self-evident is knowing that the imperatives of human consciousness are absolute. You've just conceded that they are absolute.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

If not, then let me ask you this: What would constitute proof for you?

Look, in the above you asked me a specific question, but I don't think you realize that the question you asked about "natural rights" was actually more complex than the one you thought you had asked.

If you won't hear the pertinent history that you might see the reoccurring historical themes of natural morality. . . .

In any event, I have two to three more posts of medium length, a bone to pick with Quantum and another that clearly demonstrates their existence. But if you won't ask about or discuss points then. . . .

The matter is simple enough; only relativists make it more complex than it need be.

Absolutism is about the concrete, not the abstract.

Please explain what you mean by absolute. I hope I have the specific meaning in that you mean a universal truth. I dont see where I conceded that anything was absolute about the human consciousness except mans capacity to create things out of mid air. The fact that man does that is self evident but that does not make the creations themselves self evident. The 3rd mind is a concept not a fact. Me using it does not mean I would argue its existence with anyone. Does that make sense to you?

Short of you supplying me proof another conscious entity exists that gave us these rights I dont see how you can prove it. Do you?

Its not that I wont hear the pertinent history. Ive heard it before. I just dont think it applies. In the end it is a concept humans made up. Labeling the rights as inalienable or natural simply attempts to put them out of reach in the minds of the people. It is a tool of social control. i define you some vague rights via the air and then say I am protecting them for you from "those bad people". I just garnered your support and insured your submission to me because i am protecting you.

Even absolutism depends on the abstract. You still have to convince the people to accept a concept.

Well said----there seems to be an attempt here to make a distinction between behaviors. Some are labeled as "natural" as to squelch any attempt debate their legitimacy or importance. Is there even such a thing a right that isn't natural ?

 

[Asclepias]

There's several members of this board who write the very same kind of posts I write. I don't write to impress. I write to think and learn and share. Projecting? So do they, and what they write is fascinating.

I've learned lots from you, everyone of ya.

My mind and tastes just don't work like yours. That's all.

Besides, you won't see me for months at time on this board. I have a life beyond this board, and, yes, of course, with family and friends. We all do, I hope. That's what makes the world go around. LOL!

And sure I can talk in the sense that you apparently mean, too. Sure. If that's what you all prefer. Why not? I'm talking to you now.
__________________________________________________

I got a pertinent question for those of you who might have missed the fact I proved that all of the naysayers objections come down to one thing, namely, relativism.

Given that's your position, I'm asking a pertinent question about your belief. Just talking.

Can you tell me how one can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference?

I don't know anyway to do that? So why am I getting this flack about being a know it all?

That's my point! Folks are unwittingly asserting this is possible. I don't know how to do that. Do you guys know something I don't.

Do you, Quantum? You mentioned quantum physics.


Real question. How is it done?

Maybe I misjudged you. I apologize for the insinuation that you are a know-it-all. I didn't quite mean for you to take it like that. IMO I don't believe you can make two ideas that are diametrically opposed both be true. One is wrong or the other option being that both are wrong. Maybe we can give that topic a go as well. if you have ever heard of he Master Mind Alliance and the power of the 3rd mind then you will know that was what I was hoping for. I was hoping we could do this with respect to differing viewpoints. I really like the idea of rights being inalienable. I just don't see any proof they are.

Thank you for this. You just bumped up several notches on my respect/appreciation meter, not that you necessarily would see that as any big deal.

The concept of rights not existing if they can be infringed may be diametrically opposed to a concept of unalienable rights as you look at it, but for me, it makes perfectly good sense. It is all a matter of government recognizing that certain rights exist apart from government and to institute a government that does recognize that and does not interfere with but rather enforces the concept.

It feels a little bit like the chicken or egg dichotomy, but it really isn't if one can get past a concept of manmade law and fathom a kind of universal truth about what liberty actually is.

I don't fault anybody for disagreeing with me and in fact respect a great deal those who can do so competently and without animosity. But we have had a lot of pages now in which the opposing arguments have been about mostly separate things or got sidetracked in twisted semantics.

But as for those dichotomies for which there are maybe no solutions, consider:

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE.

THE PRECEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.​

In order for me to believe that a dichotomy exists we need to change the wording. You simply cannot have an "inalienable right" that can be taken away. Its not logical unless you pretend inalienable doesn't mean what it actually means. Same with natural right. All of them are man made rights.

 

[dilloduck]

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

The worth of the behavior is a decision made by society. If a behavior is deemed worthy but not offered any protection then something's fishy.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.

it serves to provide "intent"

 

[Asclepias]

Rights are only worthless when you do not protect and cherish them. In your example, the ‘right to not be eaten’ certainly is worthless if you hold up a sign and simply expect it to be followed. You have failed to defend that right and it will be violated.

Now, if he were rolling through that pride of lions with a 12 gauge and willing to defend the right then the outcome would be entirely different.

Hence the famous quote about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron. Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights. I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.

 

[dilloduck]

I that particular post I am merely questioning the fact that certain rights were labeled unalienable. By definition an unalienable right cannot be separated or taken away. It's as simple as that. I think it's time to dump the word "unalienable" when trying to describe behaviors that people want to protect. It only serves to confuse.

it serves to provide "intent"

agreed---it was used to show how important these behaviors were to the founding fathers however in this debate the word "unalienable" is being used to mean the same thing as "natural". That's where the confusion lies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron. Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights. I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.

Is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

If so, why?

If not, why?

 

[dilloduck]

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron. Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights. I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.

Is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

If so, why?

If not, why?

If anything it is the concept of "natural rights" that is in the realm of metaphysical.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

OK I can agree with the concept natural/inalienable rights are worthless if not protected. My point is if they exist what good are they if they have to be protected and what makes them different from legal rights other than the fact that our government put them in a different category to protect against tyranny?

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron. Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights. I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

 

[Asclepias]

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron. Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights. I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.

Is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

If so, why?

If not, why?

Depends on how high you are.

We have to start somewhere to maintain sanity and logic. Therefore we need to say there are some observable absolutes. For example we need water to survive. That would be an absolute to me.

 

[Asclepias]

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea. . . .

Question:

So if they are worthless when not protected, they have worth when they are protected?

Right?

In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron. Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights. I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

Yes.

Again this is me suspending my belief they dont exist without man defining them.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In this particular instance with Foxfyre I am suspending my belief that inalienable is an oxymoron. Protecting them does impart some value simply because you can seek redress and draw satisfaction in seeing those punished who transgress on your rights. I actually think all rights are really worthless because they can be taken away and in the end if someone kills you it wont matter if you have rights or not.

Is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

If so, why?

If not, why?

If anything it is the concept of "natural rights" that is in the realm of metaphysical.

Where are you getting natural rights in that? Concentrate. Is the statement true or false?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 ?

Doesn't change the fact you do not have a leg to stand on.
Destruction necessitates prior existence. No way around it.