Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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.

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

No they simply cease to exist.

Why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

No they simply cease to exist.

Why?

Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.

 

[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.

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

Only because someone has decided that they are worthy of protecting.

 

[Asclepias]

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

No they simply cease to exist.

Why?

Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.

However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.

 

[dilloduck]

No they simply cease to exist.

Why?

Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.

sure you do----you can do anything you want. Some may try to stop you and some may encourage and assist you.

 

[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.

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

Only because someone has decided that they are worthy of protecting.

And who decided that?

 

[dilloduck]

Strike the government from the picture.

In nature, if protected they have worth, right?

Only because someone has decided that they are worthy of protecting.

And who decided that?

Men of course

 

[Asclepias]

No they simply cease to exist.

Why?

Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.

Freedom and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No they simply cease to exist.

Why?

Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.

However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.

So man is not part of nature?!

 

[Asclepias]

Why?

Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.

However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.

So man is not part of nature?!

Not according to the definition of natural which man defined.

 

[dilloduck]

Why?

Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.

However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.

So man is not part of nature?!

aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why?

Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.

Freedom and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.

Do you have the right to sleep in my house?

 

[dilloduck]

Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.

Freedom and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.

Do you have the right to sleep in my house?

Sure---I do it all the time

 

[Asclepias]

Because, apparently, absent government, you do not have the freedom (the liberty, the right) to tell people how much you like cheese.

Freedom and right are not the same thing. I have the freedom or freewill to go sleep in the white house. i do not have the right.

Do you have the right to sleep in my house?

No not unless you give it to me but I have the freedom to come and take up residence by force.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Because it is a man made concept with means they cant be natural because natural means not man made.

However, change my answer to yes so I can see where you are going.

So man is not part of nature?!

aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.

No you don't. Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer. You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.

The Building is natural?

Yes!

Man is natural?

Yes!

Why are they both natural?

Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm: material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .

So whatever man conceives is natural?

Yes!

But is everything he might conceive true?

For example, is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

If yes, why?

If no, why?

 

[Asclepias]

So man is not part of nature?!

aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.

No you don't. Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer. You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.

The Building is natural?

Yes!

Man is natural?

Yes!

Why are they both natural?

Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm: material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .

So whatever man conceives is natural?

Yes!

But is everything he might conceive true?

For example, is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

Thats impossible. According to man anything man made is not natural. What has occurred is that man has left a paper trail as evidence they have tampered with so many things they have lost track of where one concept ends and another begins.

 

[dilloduck]

So man is not part of nature?!

aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.

No you don't. Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer. You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.

The Building is natural?

Yes!

Man is natural?

Yes!

Why are they both natural?

Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm: material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .

So whatever man conceives is natural?

Yes!

But is everything he might conceive true?

For example, is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

You really need to quit jacking with the definition of Natural here. It only serves to confuse.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.

No you don't. Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer. You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.

The Building is natural?

Yes!

Man is natural?

Yes!

Why are they both natural?

Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm: material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .

So whatever man conceives is natural?

Yes!

But is everything he might conceive true?

For example, is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

You really need to quit jacking with the definition of Natural here. It only serves to confuse.

How am I jacking with it? Everything that is contained in the cosmos is natural.

You're the one piling complexity on top of simplicity. You're the one who thought a man-made building had anything to do with its substance.

What is a building made of?

Natural substances.

 

[Asclepias]

No you don't. Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer. You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.

The Building is natural?

Yes!

Man is natural?

Yes!

Why are they both natural?

Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm: material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .

So whatever man conceives is natural?

Yes!

But is everything he might conceive true?

For example, is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

You really need to quit jacking with the definition of Natural here. It only serves to confuse.

How am I jacking with it? Everything that is contained in the cosmos is natural.

You're the one piling complexity on top of simplicity. You're the one who thought a man-made building had anything to do with its substance.

What is a building made of?

Natural substances.

Depends on what building. Some are made of the combination of man made substances and natural substances. Thats what synthetics are. Either way it doesn't matter because if it did not exist without man doing it then it is not natural. For example nothing is natural about the Bay bridge.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

aha----now I see where you are going. Then the Empire State Building is natural too.

No you don't. Here's the problem, guys. You simply will not allow for the exact answer. You don't want to follow the line of logic to the truth.

The Building is natural?

Yes!

Man is natural?

Yes!

Why are they both natural?

Because they are contained in what we call the natural realm: material, empirical, physical, concrete, tangible and so on. . . .

So whatever man conceives is natural?

Yes!

But is everything he might conceive true?

For example, is the following statement self-evident and absolutely true: there are no absolutes.

Thats impossible. According to man anything man made is not natural. What has occurred is that man has left a paper trail as evidence they have tampered with so many things they have lost track of where one concept ends and another begins.

The only thing that matters here is yes or no.

So are you saying that there are absolutes or not?