Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[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*

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.

Sociopath.

 

[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.

Sociopath.

name calling now ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath? Clinical question.

 

[dilloduck]

Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath?

Seriously----name calling ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath?

Seriously----name calling ?

Reading comprehension. This is purely clinical. You're behavior is akin to that of a sociopath.

For example, I asked you a two simple questions.

You evade them . . . repeatedly. Sociopaths are like that. Paranoid, narcissistic, un-empathetic, evasive, suspicious, dishonest, without shame, manipulative. . . . just saying, wondering.

That's not normal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

 

[dilloduck]

Seriously, dilloduck, do you think it might be possible that your are a sociopath?

Seriously----name calling ?

Reading comprehension. This is purely clinical. You're behavior is akin to that of a sociopath.

For example, I asked you a two simple questions.

You evade them . . . repeatedly. Sociopaths are like that. Paranoid, narcissistic, un-empathetic, evasive, suspicious, dishonest, without shame, manipulative. . . . just saying, wondering.

That's not normal.

No----you pretty clearly said sociopath. It's one word--easy to understand--requires no reading comprehension. Spin spin spin-----how can I call that person a name and try to stay within the rules.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

People are put in jail.

You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

The essence of a human being is behavior? You have to follow rules in order to have this essence? This essence leaves you in jail?

This is not normal. Disconnect. Separation. Apartness. Superficial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People are put in jail.

You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?

 

[dilloduck]

You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?

You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.

 

[dilloduck]

You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

The essence of a human being is behavior? You have to follow rules in order to have this essence? This essence leaves you in jail?

This is not normal. Disconnect. Separation. Apartness. Superficial.

Essence is your word not mine. Rights are a permission to behave or think in a certain fashion.

 

[dblack]

You have a blinding grasp of the obvious. Tell me something, what does the government do with the rights of people they put in jail? Do they have a special storage facility for them or do they just let the rights run around without being attached to anyone?

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?

Cute. But I suppose turning their own trolling nonsense back on them is only fair.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?

You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.

How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No----you lose your right until the government decides to give it back to you. That's an example of why liberty is not an unalienable right. Again--it a behavior that man has decided is important but you have to follow certain rules to be able to use it.

Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?

Cute. But I suppose turning their own trolling nonsense back on them is only fair.

It is also a lot of fun.

 

[dilloduck]

Where does the government keep the right? What about people who escape from jail? Do they steal their right back before they escape, or does the government issue it to them when they find them missing?

You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.

How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?

You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're finally getting the picture------the right is not a thing that exists. It is similar to a power or an authority.

How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?

You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.

If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?

 

[dilloduck]

How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?

You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.

If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?

The government----our government gave that right to you.

 

[KokomoJojo]

How am I getting that picture when I am arguing against it?

You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.

If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?

Doesnt mean a human gave them to you.

Anything granted by government is a political right. Not a right of man.

 

[KokomoJojo]

You don't think a right can be taken away ? I guess you are splitting hairs and separating the right from the act of using the right. Myself, I would rather be free than have the right to be free.

If someone can take them away, then someone must have given them to me in the first place. Who was that?

The government----our government gave that right to you.

hardly, because someone can take a right away does not mean the right originated through them