Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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.

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?

Yes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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?

Yes.

Yes, they exist?

OR

No, they don't?

 

[Foxfyre]

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 ?

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?

What good is a right to bear arms, express a religious belief, speak or write what one believes, or be secure in one's own property, etc. if it can be violated? The Constitution did not state there is a right to have these things but, in the Bill of Rights, explicitly recognized that they existed and restrained the government from violating them? If they are violated, does that mean they do not exist? Or just that something or somebody chose to deny another the ability to exercise them?

P.S. There is no right to be immune to consequences for one's choices. I have no right to not be eaten by lions if I choose to walk among them. I have no right not to die if I jump off a tall building or to not experience severe distress if I choose to consume certain substances. Do not confuse ability with a right. Do not confuse choices with a right. There can be a right to choose. A right may allow us ability. But they are different things.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

So a bridge is made of a spiritual substance?

No it is made of synthetic and natural substances and done so by man. Therefore it is not natural.

 

[Asclepias]

The only thing that matters here is yes or no.

So are you saying that there are absolutes or not?

Yes.

Yes, they exist?

OR

No, they don't?

For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes.

Yes, they exist?

OR

No, they don't?

For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.

There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Plain as day to you perhaps. But your opinion/perception/conclusion on this is completely wrong to those of us who understand what unalienable means in this context. But it does require an ability to see and understand a universal truth as the Founders saw it. I concede that some just don't seem to have that abiility.

 

[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?

What good is a right to bear arms, express a religious belief, speak or write what one believes, or be secure in one's own property, etc. if it can be violated? The Constitution did not state there is a right to have these things but, in the Bill of Rights, explicitly recognized that they existed and restrained the government from violating them? If they are violated, does that mean they do not exist? Or just that something or somebody chose to deny another the ability to exercise them?

P.S. There is no right to be immune to consequences for one's choices. I have no right to not be eaten by lions if I choose to walk among them. I have no right not to die if I jump off a tall building or to not experience severe distress if I choose to consume certain substances. Do not confuse ability with a right. Do not confuse choices with a right. There can be a right to choose. A right may allow us ability. But they are different things.

If rights exist outside of man defining them then they are worthless. To my observations nature has never created anything worthless.

The reason there is no right to be immune to consequences of ones choices is simple. Rights have no power unless you are capable of exercising them. If I have the right to life then I should live as long as I want to provided I stay out of harms way. Your body breaks down regardless of what you do. You dont have a right to life.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes, they exist?

OR

No, they don't?

For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.

There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.

Says.......?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well no those were your words. You brought up mocking first. I can use search too

Editing a post to change its meaning is a violation of board rules. It is also absolute proof that you lost the debate.

^^^ That was a sad bluff.
You should report me then if I edited it. Go ahead because we both know it is what you said.

Here is the post you claim I said that, feel free to point out where I did.

They were actually your words. The reason I know this is because they were inside your post, not inside a quote.

If you don't believe me feel free to click on the little button next to my name in both quotes and find out they both go to the same post.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For the sake of a foundation absolutes have to exist. We need agreement on something to begin from.

There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.

It is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings can readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. For example, human beings can reckon that a triangle is the same thing as a square at the same time, on the same plane of reference.

That statement is false.

What does that tell you about human consciousness?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Since you agree that, absent government, you have the right to tell people how much you like cheese - et cetera - I'm not at all sure how you think you have any credible point remaining.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

^^^
There's your problem.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

What good is a right to bear arms, express a religious belief, speak or write what one believes, or be secure in one's own property, etc. if it can be violated? The Constitution did not state there is a right to have these things but, in the Bill of Rights, explicitly recognized that they existed and restrained the government from violating them? If they are violated, does that mean they do not exist? Or just that something or somebody chose to deny another the ability to exercise them?

P.S. There is no right to be immune to consequences for one's choices. I have no right to not be eaten by lions if I choose to walk among them. I have no right not to die if I jump off a tall building or to not experience severe distress if I choose to consume certain substances. Do not confuse ability with a right. Do not confuse choices with a right. There can be a right to choose. A right may allow us ability. But they are different things.

If rights exist outside of man defining them then they are worthless. To my observations nature has never created anything worthless.

The reason there is no right to be immune to consequences of ones choices is simple. Rights have no power unless you are capable of exercising them. If I have the right to life then I should live as long as I want to provided I stay out of harms way. Your body breaks down regardless of what you do. You dont have a right to life.

Why would rights that man has not recognized or defined be worthless?

Penicillin existed before anybody even conceived of such a thing or figured out how to utilize a mold to get it and learned how to use it. Is it worthless if nobody uses it? Or destroys it? No. It still has the same worth regardless of whether anybody chooses to ackowledge or utilize it.

Gravity existed before anybody even thought about it or figured out how to use it in previously uncommon ways or understand the far larger implications of its role in the universe. Is it worthless if nobody thinks about it or uses it? No. It is simply not considered or intentionally utilized but it exists just the same.

Is life worthless because it is temporal? Because it can be ended prematurely? Does it not exist if it is not valued?

Is thought, creativity, ingenuity, etc. valueless or does not exist just because somebody is prevented from having it via a stroke or injury?

To deny unalienable rights (as the Founders defined them) as a reality or declare them worthless if not embraced, allowed, or utilized is simply not reasonable.

 

[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



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, Last night I gave you something to think about in response to your cryptic, rhetorical question.

As for this unmitigated crap. Had you been paying attention, Quantum, rather than sleeping, you might have noted that Asclepias' asked a historical question more complex than he apparently understood it to be. There are things about the history of law that are pertinent here. One of the major things getting in the way of folks' understanding of natural morality is historical ignorance. Asclepias' question is rhetorical. It's about the pertinent fact of history—the innate and, therefore, inalienable rights of man—framed as one about the natural rights of man in quotation marks. They are one and the same thing.

Do you follow, Quantum?

The various terms that have been used throughout history regarding the innate rights of man before Augustine's designation natural rights are the dignities of man, the prerogatives of man, and the entitlements of man. They have been recognized throughout known recorded history, or was that point in the above lost on you? Or were you confused, whereas I was not, by the way Asclepia phrased the question?

Now read it again: "What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his 'natural rights'?"

The answer to that would be as earlier as ca. 2115 BC, beginning with the Code of Ur-Nammu, with the Laws of Eshnunna and the Code of Hammurabi following on its heels. The Code of Hammurabi expressed the Golden Rule in the negative relative to the corollary initial force-defensive force as an eye for an eye, and a tooth for tooth. Natural morality 101. In these the innate rights of man were recognized to exist universally and were protected by the state, which prohibited murder, the various forms of oppression and theft. However, they were not universally and consistently applied.

Why?

The answer to that fixes Asclepias' misapprehension of things.

Because the gods that endowed them were capricious, from the pantheon of those beyond (in fact, the priests and priestesses) to the emperor gods below. Divinity endows, divinity revokes. The pretext was that these various despots of paganism were the essence of nature/divinity itself. The mere men under their sway could not transfer or take rights. But then anyone paying attention can see that the actuality of the matter—the essence, not the illusion—is that self-anointed theocrats raised themselves to something they were not and in so doing effectively declared the uninitiated to be something less than human.

Did these despots actually transfer or take innate rights away? Of course not. However, their pretext demonstrates that they were very much aware of the underlying realities of natural morality. As mere men they could not take rights.

Mosaic Law called pagan statism out for what it actually was: theocrats in one form or another claiming the divine right of rule, albeit, as deities.

Asclepias did not actually ask me when in recorded history man first referred to his innate rights as natural rights. Illusion. Rather, the question he actually asked: what is the earliest evidence that we have from recorded history that man mentions his innate rights/natural rights. His semantic ploy is irrelevant; the underlying reality remains.

Isn't that right, Quantum?

I answered the question he actually asked.

He's insinuating that because innate rights have not been universally respected in history, they have not been universally recognized in history.

Non Sequitur.

There's not one wasted line in my post or one wasted point of fact refuting the inherent historical fallacies and insinuations of his question.

 

[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 ?

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?

If you are serious, explain to me how unalienable rights is an oxymoron. What makes those two words seem, to you, to have opposite or contradictory meanings. By the way, simply posting the definitions of the words is not an answer to that question because nothing in the definition of either word contradicts the other word. I can prove that quite easily by rewording the quote from the Declaration of Independence that is giving you the heeby jeebies.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Nature with certain moral entitlements that cannot be taken away, or even given away by the possessor, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

​

I breathlessly await your computer's utter inability to actually put anything you don't want to see in front of your eyes.
​

​

 

[Asclepias]

There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.

It is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings can readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. For example, human beings can reckon that a triangle is the same thing as a square at the same time, on the same plane of reference.

That statement is false.

What does that tell you about human consciousness?

The fact that a 2 people can reckon about 2 diametrically opposing ideas is not an a diametrically opposing idea. The absolute is that you have to be able to reckon in order to have a diametrically opposing idea in the first place.

 

[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.

^^^
There's your problem.

Where is my problem? Is it that I dont see the dictionary you used to define freedom and rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Once you explain to me how my right to think whatever I want is in any way dependent on anything outside the fact that I have free will you can argue that we should dump the word unalienable. Until then you are stuck with the fact that it is unalienable and I have no more need to defend it than I need to defend the fact that the universe is billions of years old. Some things just are, even if they upset the worldview of close minded idiots.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Understanding that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute, more at grasping why that's so and handling that fact, is understanding the whole of natural morality at a glance, especially after one has handled it from top to bottom for decades.

The whole package is self-evident. Axiomatic. The rest is detail.

There's not a question you can ask that I can't answer about this matter. There's not a question I've never considered that you can ask about it that this fact of reality won't divulge.

I don't have to know all the answers at any given moment, because I have the key that unlocks the answer to any question you might ask.

The only thing you could possibly be talking about is my earlier logical error of wrongful inference, which is of no consequence. In fact, it's clarification actually drives the pertinent point home.

I don't know all the answers or can't decipher them?

Why would that be?

Prove it.

What's your question?