Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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.

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?

Excuse me? As usual, you are looking at this backwards. Their value is why we protect them. We do the same thing with all our valuables, which is why you don't leave your computer outside whenever you are not using it. The more value we place on something, the harder we fight to keep it.

As for what makes them different from legal rights, our government cannot actually give us natural rights. This is a point I have made consistently, and you continue to argue that the fact that the government is forbidden from interfering with them somehow proves they only exist because government exists.

The governmnet is also prohibited from dropping a nuclear bomb in the Grand Canyon. Feel free to explain how the fact that we prohibit the government from blowing up the Grand Canyon proves it only exists because the government exists.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them. You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.

Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.

We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man. The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.

Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.

Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Once again, feel free to show me a single example of any government ever actually separating anyone from their natural right to, for example, pursue happiness. Keep in mind that killing someone is not actually separating them from their right, it is simply eliminating them from the discussion, which is why so many government love to use death as a way to end an argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ?

Why do you keep bringing up behavior? Behavior is what you do, and it is not a right.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Human beings cannot make diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are absolute. They also are inherently universal.

How does one distinguish the difference between a square and a triangle.

Simple.

They're not the same thing.
____________________________________

The lesson here is slightly more complex.

2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 5.

Which is true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet you have failed to present a single example of anyone ever taking away a right. You keep arguing that the fact that people die is proof that they do not have a right to life without actually offering any evidence to back up your conclusion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You keep arguing that way even though you admitted that some man made concepts describe actual real world things, interesting.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them. You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.

Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.

We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man. The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.

Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.

Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?

Sorry, but I believe things have value whether or not somebody recognizes the value.

You obviously don't believe that.

Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.

So further discussion is pointless, yes?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Human beings cannot make diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are absolute. They also are inherently universal.

How does one distinguish the difference between a square and a triangle.

Simple.

They're not the same thing.
____________________________________

The lesson here is slightly more complex.

2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 5.

Which is true.

I think I said the bolded before. IMO only one idea can be true or both are wrong. As far as the math problem goes what is the key? Are we doing this base 10?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You mean not according to the definition of natural which you picked solely because it furthered your goals. On the other hand, if you actually read the full definition you will see that it is entirely possible for something man made to be natural.

1: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>

2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature
b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents>
b : illegitimate <a natural child>

4: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>

5: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>

6: of or relating to nature as an object of study and research

7: having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>

8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes>
b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights>
c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>

9: possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble … brother … ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>

10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow>
b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities>
c : relating to or being natural food

11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man>
b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society

12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person>
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>

13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature
b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint
c : having a form or appearance found in nature

14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major>
b : being neither sharp nor flat
c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign

15: of an off-white or beige color
— nat·u·ral·ness noun

See natural defined for English-language learners »

See natural defined for kids »

Examples of NATURAL

1. furniture made of natural materials
2. The river forms a natural boundary between the two countries.
3. natural foods like whole grain bread and fresh vegetables
4. Gray hair is one of the natural consequences of getting older.
5. a natural increase in the population
6. the natural course of the disease
7. It's perfectly natural to feel nervous before a test.

​

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them. You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.

Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.

We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man. The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.

Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.

Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?

Sorry, but I believe things have value whether or not somebody recognizes the value.

You obviously don't believe that.

Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.

So further discussion is pointless, yes?

Thats a noble belief and in that frame of reference all things indeed have value for you. However since I believe value depends on usefulness and worth I am curious on how something holds value for you that you cannot use? For example how much value do you place on water in a grocery store full of water as opposed to half a bottle of water while lost in a desert?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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&#8212;the innate and, therefore, inalienable rights of man&#8212;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&#8212;the essence, not the illusion&#8212;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.

Which is why I responded to his post the way I did. If he is unwilling to even read the answers to questions he asks he is never going to learn. It is also why I refuse to respond to his challenges to answer questions I have already answered.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them. You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.

Then it is a good thing, for you., that other people have thought about these things and handed you a definition. The one part I don't understand is why, if your assertion that rights have no value unless you can define them, people have always fought for freedom even when they were not handed a definition of what it is. Or even why animals, who are not burdened with man made concepts like rights, are willing to chew of their own leg to get free of a trap.

Can you explain that?

Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.

Why is its value to mankind the only way to assign value? Isn't that a little bit egotistic of you to insist that the only way something has value is if you can see it?

We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man. The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.

That doesn't even make sense. Newton did not discovery gravity, he defined it. That is widely acknowledged and is absolute proof, according to you, that gravity had no value before Newton. The minor fact that the Romans, for on, actually used gravity, and obtained a value from it, is irrelevant, because, without a definition, it has no value.

Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.

Have you considered opening your eyes?

Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?

The fact that you find them worthless is not proof they are worthless, it just proves you don't value your rights.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Jefferson Chronicles


Jefferson is not the historical origin of the sociopolitical philosophy in the Declaration of Independence, which someone recently claimed again while blathering about abstract rights. Jefferson merely reiterated old themes that by his time had become crystal clear in Europe due the second breakout of biblical Christianity as a result of the Reformation, which made the Enlightenment possible. Nevertheless, Jefferson believed them and owned them in his own right. When he declared that "We hold these truths to be self-evident," he was talking about the very things I've propounded in the above. He meant every word of it, literally, in every sense of that word.

Many of you don't know your history. Jefferson didn't live in this post-modern world of baby talk, moral and intellectual relativism, the silly yet oppressive trappings of multiculturalism and political correctness. He knew better!

The typical relativist fancies himself to be the epitome of open-mindedness, the regnant bard of enlightenment, the grand purveyor of tolerance and nuance. The king of cool. What he really is: a naïve yet dangerous child throwing a tantrum, his fingers jammed to the knuckle in his ears, singing, "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!"

The relativist is the epitome of closed-minded, intellectual bigotry. He never gets past first principles, let alone grasps them that he might begin to grapple with the truly staggering complexities and nuances of the reality in which he lives. Relativism is sheer dogma, a collection of slogans and clichés.

How could it be anything else? There's no there there to hang onto.

We got folks on this board who are either trolling or actually believe that because synthetic compounds are man-made they are not natural substances!

Talk about *Yawn*.

He's the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal teetering on the very edge of the abyss of sociopathy.

There are no absolutes, but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false?

"They hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Saint Paul).

The above is precisely what Paul was talking about. What? You thought his talk of folks holding the truth and all that moral mumbo jumbo about unrighteousness was something that was not readily apparent to all, just a secrete known only by God, albeit, whispered into Paul's ear?

The distinction of the relativist about some inscrutable potentiality is the dogma that makes no difference.

The Founders and their fellow commoners were steeped in the rational, empirical and moral teachings of Judeo-Christianity and in the sociopolitical themes and anthems of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism with John Locke as the universally celebrated Father of the same, who extrapolated his rendition of natural morality, not from any relativistic or collectivistic systems of religious thought, but from that of the Bible, the ontological justification for his theory.

The dichotimic corollaries of the natural rights of man, light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions, initial force-defensive force; the essence of the inherently universal and absolute imperatives of human consciousness (Imago Dei) as propounded by the Bible, the self-evident truths of the reality with which we must contend; the depredations of monarchy and theocracy, the inalienable right of revolt and its corollary, the right to keep and bear arms; separation of church and state; the separation of governmental power; no taxation without representation; freedom of religion! freedom of speech! freedom of assembly!; the divine rights of individual liberty and free-association, namely, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: all of these things had been in the hearts and minds of prerevolutionary Americans for decades before Jefferson put pen to paper and wrote the DOI, indeed, before he was even born.

Jefferson was not the origin of any of these things. He was not trying to convince anyone to embrace these things. Americans already believed these things and knew them to be true. He was only trying to convince his reluctant countrymen to act on these things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because rights undefined have no value. You cant use them or protect them. You can only use and attempt to protect your abilities or freedoms.

Yes penicillin was worthless before being discovered. What value did it bring to mankind? Be specific.

We don't how long it took for man to discovery gravity. Just because there is no proof in a book that it was discovered before Sir Issac Newton doesn't mean it was not understood, used, and recognized by man. The Egyptians for instance were very aware of it as well as the Dogon.

Gravity and the other things you have listed are observable. I have yet to see a right.

Why is it not reasonable to define them as worthless if thats what they are?

Sorry, but I believe things have value whether or not somebody recognizes the value.

You obviously don't believe that.

Neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.

So further discussion is pointless, yes?

Thats a noble belief and in that frame of reference all things indeed have value for you. However since I believe value depends on usefulness and worth I am curious on how something holds value for you that you cannot use? For example how much value do you place on water in a grocery store full of water as opposed to half a bottle of water while lost in a desert?

The availability or urgency of something can increase its price or perception of worth, but not its value. Water in some form is a necessity of life for human existence and humans will suffer without enough of it regardless of where they are or their circumstances when they are deprived of it. It has equal value whether the body needs it in the desert or whether the body needs it in a grocery store. A body can die in either place if deprived of water for a sufficiently length of time. If you consume water that your body needs with absolutely no consciousness of relieving thirst or consciousness of the benefits to the body, it will have the same value nevertheless. And that value is not diminished one bit if somebody deprives you of water.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Human beings cannot make diametrically opposed ideas true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are absolute. They also are inherently universal.

How does one distinguish the difference between a square and a triangle.

Simple.

They're not the same thing.
____________________________________

The lesson here is slightly more complex.

2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 = 5.

Which is true.

I think I said the bolded before. IMO only one idea can be true or both are wrong. As far as the math problem goes what is the key? Are we doing this base 10?

Tedious, isn't it?

Never mind!

4!

But where exactly in the cosmos is 2 + 2 equal to 4? Where!

Human consciousness!

How do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?

We don't! Not in any immediate sense.

But one thing we know for sure, we cannot make the sum be both 4 and 5 at the same time . . . in our heads.

The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are inherently universal and absolute.

So too then would that be true about any given moral equation you care to name.

What does that tell you about innate rights?

Where do they reside?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Yet you have failed to present a single example of anyone ever taking away a right. You keep arguing that the fact that people die is proof that they do not have a right to life without actually offering any evidence to back up your conclusion.

People are put in jail.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

The post you so conveniently edited to make you point spoke of the DEFINITION being destroyed. Bad form.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear Relativist:

More on that Engraving on Man's Heart: or what possible difference could it make to us? Free Will. Your choice. I opt for the practical, but that's just me.

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

The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule: treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you. The rest is history. As I pointed out in the above: it's not that important that this is written on stones or papyrus because it's already written on man's heart; that is to say, it's embedded in his nature, the nature of a sentient being.

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

The essence of its apprehension: the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision that are inherently universal and absolute.

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

The essence of its material ground: the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle: not as a whole as the materialist would have it, but as the sum. The difference between the two is the difference between that which is metaphysical and that which is quantifiable, respectively.

Perhaps you think these things are not actual beyond the constraints of human consciousness. A hardwired illusion! Okay. But the illusion is still the same self-evident realty for us. Make no mistake about it, you are bound by the mutual obligations of morality and their sociopolitical ramifications as summarized in the Golden Rule whether you merely react to their impact on your life at the instinctual level of self-interest and self-preservation, or perceive them at the conscious level of a morally enlightened human being.

Even if your level of apprehension is the former due to the fact that you are a congenital sociopath or merely a relativist with your ego backed up against the wall in the face of the incontrovertible, a more common human failing: you would not have me (1) to kill you, (2) to oppress you or (3) to steal from you. I know this because I would not have you do anyone of these three things to me. Apprehension of the ramifications at the rational level of being. Also, I know this because you have incessantly complained about these same three things in your supposed falsifications of the actual existence of the three, correlative categories of natural rights: (1) the right to life, (2) the right to liberty and (3) the right of private property. Apprehension of the actualization at the empirical level of being.

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

You guys are hung up on the apparent abstraction of the term right, as opposed to the term ability and the freedoms thereof. Even when you're not confounding its usage relative to the distinction between these three categories of innate rights and the mere political rights, civil rights or civil protections afforded by government: you fail to make the connection. Ironically, you get the essence of the term, but you never get the sense in which this abstraction obtains given that the legal code that attests to the existence of these three categories of rights is embedded in human nature, the nature of a sentient being!

You're looking for historical artifacts or declarations as if one need prove to oneself what one already knows to be true.

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

It's the incorruptible Imago Dei (image of God) embedded in human nature, which persists as your guide toward the way of intellectual and moral rectitude, or as your judge despite the fallen and rebellious aspect of human nature. This along with the empirical repercussions in nature of disregarding its recommendations is God's system of checks and balances against your violation of His inalienable rights and authority, and the dignity of your fellow human beings.

Hence, don't tell me you don't see that which is universally recognized by all as I have just proven, indeed, as you and your cohorts have unwittingly and repeatedly proven every time you think to challenge their existence on the grounds of their alleged neutralization via one of the three correlative means: murder, oppression or theft, none of which, quite obviously, ever lays so much as a glove on the ultimate essence of these rights!

*crickets chirping*

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

Yet, as any astute observer may see, one need not appeal to God's existence to demonstrate the actuality of natural morality's imperatives. It's not rationally possible to refute their existence without proving their existence. Hence, they are axiomatically true for all intents and purposes. They are self-evident.

What possible difference would it make to us if beyond the absolute constraints of human consciousness reality is ultimately the stuff of utter chaos. We do not live our lives or think our lives as if two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Indeed, how could we possibly know if the ultimate facts of realty were the stuff of chaos?

The distinctions of relativism are the dogma that make no difference. *Yawn*

 

[dilloduck]

Dear Relativist:

More on that Engraving on Man's Heart: or what possible difference could it make to us? Free Will. Your choice. I opt for the practical, but that's just me.

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

The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule: treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you. The rest is history. As I pointed out in the above: it's not that important that this is written on stones or papyrus because it's already written on man's heart; that is to say, it's embedded in his nature, the nature of a sentient being.

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

The essence of its apprehension: the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision that are inherently universal and absolute.

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

The essence of its material ground: the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle: not as a whole as the materialist would have it, but as the sum. The difference between the two is the difference between that which is metaphysical and that which is quantifiable, respectively.

Perhaps you think these things are not actual beyond the constraints of human consciousness. A hardwired illusion! Okay. But the illusion is still the same self-evident realty for us. Make no mistake about it, you are bound by the mutual obligations of morality and their sociopolitical ramifications as summarized in the Golden Rule whether you merely react to their impact on your life at the instinctual level of self-interest and self-preservation, or perceive them at the conscious level of a morally enlightened human being.

Even if your level of apprehension is the former due to the fact that you are a congenital sociopath or merely a relativist with your ego backed up against the wall in the face of the incontrovertible, a more common human failing: you would not have me (1) to kill you, (2) to oppress you or (3) to steal from you. I know this because I would not have you do anyone of these three things to me. Apprehension of the ramifications at the rational level of being. Also, I know this because you have incessantly complained about these same three things in your supposed falsifications of the actual existence of the three, correlative categories of natural rights: (1) the right to life, (2) the right to liberty and (3) the right of private property. Apprehension of the actualization at the empirical level of being.

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

You guys are hung up on the apparent abstraction of the term right, as opposed to the term ability and the freedoms thereof. Even when you're not confounding its usage relative to the distinction between these three categories of innate rights and the mere political rights, civil rights or civil protections afforded by government: you fail to make the connection. Ironically, you get the essence of the term, but you never get the sense in which this abstraction obtains given that the legal code that attests to the existence of these three categories of rights is embedded in human nature, the nature of a sentient being!

You're looking for historical artifacts or declarations as if one need prove to oneself what one already knows to be true.

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

It's the incorruptible Imago Dei (image of God) embedded in human nature, which persists as your guide toward the way of intellectual and moral rectitude, or as your judge despite the fallen and rebellious aspect of human nature. This along with the empirical repercussions in nature of disregarding its recommendations is God's system of checks and balances against your violation of His inalienable rights and authority, and the dignity of your fellow human beings.

Hence, don't tell me you don't see that which is universally recognized by all as I have just proven, indeed, as you and your cohorts have unwittingly and repeatedly proven every time you think to challenge their existence on the grounds of their alleged neutralization via one of the three correlative means: murder, oppression or theft, none of which, quite obviously, ever lays so much as a glove on the ultimate essence of these rights!

*crickets chirping*

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

Yet, as any astute observer may see, one need not appeal to God's existence to demonstrate the actuality of natural morality's imperatives. It's not rationally possible to refute their existence without proving their existence. Hence, they are axiomatically true for all intents and purposes. They are self-evident.

What possible difference would it make to us if beyond the absolute constraints of human consciousness reality is ultimately the stuff of utter chaos. We do not live our lives or think our lives as if two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Indeed, how could we possibly know if the ultimate facts of realty were the stuff of chaos?

The distinctions of relativism are the dogma that make no difference. *Yawn*

Gibberish and sophistry.

The fundamental principle of natural morality/natural law is the Golden Rule: treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.

Link me to something that verifies that.