Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[KokomoJojo]

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.

true, however the government at least in the us does whatever the hell it pleases to suit "its" agenda.

Age old since the beginnings of aristocracies and force imposed, they since their inception merely change the the meaning of the words or create new words.

Such as behavior being substituted for action or simply putting an idea in the minds of the public and over time changing the definitions in the dictionary to popular usage rather than having a standard for legitimately constructed language.

Example:

FROM THIS:


They got you by the balls.

Most people are none the wiser because they get "educated" with this definition:

TO THIS:
exterminate 1. to destroy (living things, esp pests or vermin) completely; annihilate; eliminate



where it then becomes the new tradition despite its meaning at the time it was used.

 

[dilloduck]

That's the concern that critics of Natural rights have too. Who does the deciding and defining. The UN gave it a shot in 1948---they chose to believe in them.

 

[KokomoJojo]

That's the concern that critics of Natural rights have too. Who does the deciding and defining. The UN gave it a shot in 1948---they chose to believe in them.

the courts generally, however we know or should know how corrupt they are.

its in the bible actually, they talk about the destruction of the language and today it is a total shit mess. You go into court and say a word and if the judge dont like your smile they interpret it contrary to your intended meaning. Its always been bend over to government.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

In the definition of value you will find the word worth. It is a inherent part of value. If it is in abundance it is worth less. If it is scarce and your need for it is greater it becomes more valuable. It is a natural need not a want.

Undiscovered penicillin has zero value as it is not needed nor is its presence detected. Inalienable rights are akin to penicillin. Once discovered they have some value but if it is taken you don't die because it is not needed in order to maintain the ability. Rights are things people want to have in order to empower themselves to exercise their abilities.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists. So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Humans make governments.

 

[Asclepias]

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

Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Except that I can actually cite court cases that show that rights exist outside of government purview. For example, in Griswald v Connecticut the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy even though it is never actually mentioned anywhere in law or the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's the concern that critics of Natural rights have too. Who does the deciding and defining. The UN gave it a shot in 1948---they chose to believe in them.

There are governments that prefer to pretend that the only rights that actually exist are the ones they choose to acknowledge? Who'da think it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists. So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.

Tell me something, if natural rights do not exist, what possible objection could you logically mount to slavery? Or even discrimination and racism?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?

Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?

 

[beagle9]

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?

Don't you realize that we live in a world where there is good and evil in which is demonstrated on a daily basis be it in proof there of ? If we lived in a world where evil didnot exist, then we would need not the protections of those rights in which we are born with. Now evil is not born, but rather it is something that has gotten loosed within the world in which we do live in, and it seeks to consume us if we do not recognize the very things in which we are born with that is good, and that is born within each and everyone of us from the beginning of our lives.

The Bible lays all of this out for us, and throughout the generations we see the results of it all, and we have made records that have been laid down through out history of it all just as well. Any man who claims he is ingnorant of these things, is either lying or playing Satans game for him.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Can anyone prove it did not come from the mind of a human?

Did I miss your responses to all the times I pointed out the fact that animals exhibit moral behavior?

even a blind wild hog finds an acorn now and then

 

[beagle9]

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?

Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists. So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.

And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?

A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.

There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.

 

[dilloduck]

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?

Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists. So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.

And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?

A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.

There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.

10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes we do know 2+2 =4 is beyond the constraints of our mind. We can pile up 2 rocks then go get 2 more and call the entire group 4 or 7 or 19 or even 100 if we want to. Its provable and observable. What we cant do is go get a right and prove it exists. So innate/inalienable/natural rights exist in mans mind which is the point I have been showing all along.

And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?

A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.

There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.

10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse

I started to read that link, but my bullshit meter exploded when I read about the sharpened teeth of the first kid Shamdeo. Did the wolves that allegedly raised him teach him how to sharpen his teeth?

 

[beagle9]

And who programmed these rights into man's mind as he or she was forming in the womb ?

A computer can not start up or run without an OS system, just as a mind can not start up or run as well without a biological OS system. Now who is responsible for that system in which starts up the human mind once born into the world ? Do yall realize that computers and everything else are mere extensions or creations that were fashioned after that which was already in play by the one who had fashioned it all first ? Think about how it all works, and then seek out the source of it all. You will find God in everything, as he was the original source that everything has been created from afterwards.

There was a beginning, and he is our beginning. Everything else is history.

10 Modern Cases of Feral Children - Listverse

I started to read that link, but my bullshit meter exploded when I read about the sharpened teeth of the first kid Shamdeo. Did the wolves that allegedly raised him teach him how to sharpen his teeth?

LOL just to funny they are...LOL

Never a dull moment with some of these people is there ? LOL

 

[dilloduck]

No feral children ever existed ? Is that the claim ?

 

[dblack]

Just thought I'd drop in here with a reminder, amongst all the trollage, to be mindful of the agendas involved. There's a reason some people are throwing their poo around trying to undermine the idea of human rights.

 

[dilloduck]

Just thought I'd drop in here with a reminder, amongst all the trollage, to be mindful of the agendas involved. There's a reason some people are throwing their poo around trying to undermine the idea of human rights.

The OP is regarding Natural rights----what is the natural nature of man anyway?