Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

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?

Who said I couldn't mount a logical argument and why would I have to mount a logical argument in the first place?

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do. Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.

 

[Intense]

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

Well then, that wild hog has an advantage over you, being able to reason and think for itself, with or without government direction. You on the other hand need government sanction, first, in all things.

Question.... What actually, in truth, does government give, that it did not first, acquire from someone else? Be it a thought or concept, or something material? Why do you confuse government with being the author or source, rather than the steward or administrator? Truth, in something government can lead, but, more often, it lags, adapting to trends already in heavy practice. Why do you think that is?

 

[Intense]

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?

Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do. Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.

I respectfully disagree. Animals do exhibit moral behavior. Consider the possibility that there may be, or is, a structure to the Universe, to Creation, beyond our understanding and perception. In all things there is a right and wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Well then, that wild hog has an advantage over you, being able to reason and think for itself, with or without government direction. You on the other hand need government sanction, first, in all things.

Question.... What actually, in truth, does government give, that it did not first, acquire from someone else? Be it a thought or concept, or something material? Why do you confuse government with being the author or source, rather than the steward or administrator? Truth, in something government can lead, but, more often, it lags, adapting to trends already in heavy practice. Why do you think that is?

That hog is not reasoning--it's operating on pure instinct. I've never claimed the government is the source of anything. it's basically a civilized mob that attempts to be the good guys and protect certain behavior while punishing others in order to create a greater good.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do. Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.

I respectfully disagree. Animals do exhibit moral behavior. Consider the possibility that there may be, or is, a structure to the Universe, to Creation, beyond our understanding and perception. In all things there is a right and wrong.

and a good and a bad ? Are these concepts universal and identical in every culture in the world ?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Are we speaking religious good and evil or are we talking the behavior we label as good and bad? IMO there is no religious good except that which is inspired by the belief in a higher being. That is a construct of man. IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.

The Bible is another example of humans getting together and deciding to provide a moral code that will safeguard the model of society they deemed desirable. The sad thing is that it has great messages and lessons for good living but it is so full of errors and contradictions that it is apparent it was not divinely inspired. That sounds suspiciously like the imperfect human mind at work to me.

If I wanted a group of people to behave a certain way I would claim this way of living came from something more powerful and wise than myself. I would appeal to the human need for security in the context of social living. I would condemn the bad behaviour that anyone could easily observe that destroys the dynamic I wanted to create. Lastly I would make sure no one could ever prove that my source did not exist by making it invisible and unquestionable.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Lets say you are correct and someone/something has to program these rights into mans mind. Can you prove this something exists without resorting to conjecture? It does not exist except in the mind of man looking for a rational explanation for his ability to think in the abstract and alter nature. If man accepted his ability without questioning it man would be a lot better off. Using a computer to provide an example wont work simply because a computer is a man made object. I did not exist until man made it.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Are we speaking religious good and evil or are we talking the behavior we label as good and bad? IMO there is no religious good except that which is inspired by the belief in a higher being. That is a construct of man. IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.

The Bible is another example of humans getting together and deciding to provide a moral code that will safeguard the model of society they deemed desirable. The sad thing is that it has great messages and lessons for good living but it is so full of errors and contradictions that it is apparent it was not divinely inspired. That sounds suspiciously like the imperfect human mind at work to me.

If I wanted a group of people to behave a certain way I would claim this way of living came from something more powerful and wise than myself. I would appeal to the human need for security in the context of social living. I would condemn the bad behaviour that anyone could easily observe that destroys the dynamic I wanted to create. Lastly I would make sure no one could ever prove that my source did not exist by making it invisible and unquestionable.

Humans are a confused lot----we don't really know what we're supposed to be doing here or how we are supposed to behave. We got the survival thing down. Now what do we do with the rest of our time ? We could create the perfect environment with worlds peace and love. If we had that, what would we do with it ? Spend more time watching movies or posting on the internet ?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

 

[Asclepias]

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

Yes you must have missed them like you usually do. Animals don't exhibit moral behavior. Humans say animals exhibit moral behavior because they want to pretend animals feel the way they do. Never heard my dog tell me it was morally wrong he has to sleep outside in his run while I sleep in my bed.

I respectfully disagree. Animals do exhibit moral behavior. Consider the possibility that there may be, or is, a structure to the Universe, to Creation, beyond our understanding and perception. In all things there is a right and wrong.

Are you sure you are not observing the behavior and labeling it moral? If you are sure can you prove it to me? There is a construct and order to the universe. That is apparent. We cant jump the gun and say it is a divine force that created this perfection and put us very imperfect humans in charge without proof. If i was God there would be no way I would put humans in charge of something I created.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

I agree it is not the same thing. I believe worth is inherent in the term value. Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.

I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible. It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

I agree it is not the same thing. I believe worth is inherent in the term value. Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.

I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible. It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.

Easier said than done---these are the things that give people hope and something to believe in. We would be alone without a back up if there wasn't something invisible running the show.

 

[Asclepias]

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

I agree it is not the same thing. I believe worth is inherent in the term value. Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.

I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible. It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.

Easier said than done---these are the things that give people hope and something to believe in. We would be alone without a back up if there wasn't something invisible running the show.

I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough. It would still provide the security part. I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them and must never interfere or prohibit the free exercise of them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

I agree it is not the same thing. I believe worth is inherent in the term value. Thats not semantics thats the smoking gun I saw in the dictionary. If worth was not inherent in the word value who would care about what you value? Its just a starting point. An idea you have in your mind to convey the worth. You may value your home at 1 million but if it will only sale for 500k then that is what it is worth. You are correct inalienable and inalienable rights are 2 different things. In the case of inalienable rights the inalienable is an adj. describing the right.

I dont get why we don't decree certain rights are not up for discussion and stop claiming these rights came from something invisible. It is an argument that shortly will hold no water as people start figuring out they are the victims of their instincts and over active imaginations.

It is a matter of believing or knowing that something exists or not believing it I think. If I am understanding you, you believe rights are thought up and are assigned by men. I go with the Founders and the great philosophers who informed them that rights exist apart and separate from what man decides they will be.

And we probably won't agree on that, but boiled down to the simplest concept, it does define the core difference between those who are modern American conservatives/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") as we understand that and those who are modern day progressive/statists/leftists/politicial class/liberals as we understand that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?

No. Seriously I try to use words as they are intended. I leave selective defintiions up to those who have to do that to deny what to me is the obvious.

 

[oldfart]

IMO there is no such thing as evil. There are only bad behaviors that are anti-social, detrimental, and frightening to our instinct to belong to a group.

I would quibble here. Nature is not perfect. Many traits and mechanisms that have some evolutionary value may also have severely deleterious results. When any such counterproductive mechanism gets established with regularity, some belief systems treat it as "evil" requiring conscious effort to avoid or overcome.

Take for example anger. You stub your toe and shout an expletive. It hurts. You are in a foul mood. As you pass your dog you are tempted to kick it too if it barks. You are having a bad day. If you don't make an effort to avoid it, you kick the barking dog. The dog in turn bites the mailman. To a Hindu or Buddhist this is passing on bad karma. Abrahamic faiths label it bad behavior or evil. Taoists and Confucians simply call it stupid.

But my point is that all mammals (at least) seemed programmed to react this way when encountering unexpected pain. There is something about the mechanism itself which is self-perpetuating and leads to negative outcomes. On an individual and social level it takes some affirmative recognition and action to stop the chain of events.

Maybe "evil" is too loaded a word for this kind of thing, but it exists and acts like a force of nature. With humans it is incomparably worse because we think about how we think and act. Most of our behaviors are habitual, or random, or instinctive; but we have a need to provide a rational justification after the fact for actions we took with no forethought at all. So we kicked the dog because he was "lazy and wouldn't get out of the way" etc. Do this often enough and you create a fantasy world of how you justify your own unthinking behavior.

And those fantasy worlds are what is truly dangerous. Maybe even evil.

 

[oldfart]

Are you sure you are not observing the behavior and labeling it moral? If you are sure can you prove it to me? There is a construct and order to the universe. That is apparent. We cant jump the gun and say it is a divine force that created this perfection and put us very imperfect humans in charge without proof. If i was God there would be no way I would put humans in charge of something I created.

I think you have stumbled into the Taoist view of the universe. In Taoist thought, Tao is perfect, but it is not good. It just is. When humans adjust their behavior in concert with Tao they do better than when they resist Tao. Tao is eternal and no one created it. In one sense, it is simply the basic principles that govern the operation of all things. You can swim upstream or downstream (one being obviously easier than the other) but you cannot change the direction of the river.

 

[dilloduck]

Well if you argue that there is no difference between 'value' and 'worth' then we are back to arguing silly semantics--like some want to argue that the definition of unalienable is the same thing as unalienable rights--even though some do use the two terms of 'value' and 'worth', usually erroneously, interchangeably.

The way I see it:

"Worth" indicates a quantitative or tangible price that one is willing to pay or attribute to something. And that indeed can rise and fall depending on supply and demand.

"Value" is the importance or significance of something. The importance may increase or decrease depending on the urgency of any given situation--for example, how much I value my 'right to life' would not be important in the moments when I risk my life to save my child from imminent danger. And some memento given to us by a parent or grandparent or some other significant person might be worthless as far as what it could be sold for, yet have great value to us personally.

For those who would benefit from it, penicillin is just as important and has value whether it is free or priced like gold, whether it is available or unavailable to us, whether it is discovered or undiscovered. And it exists.

For those who value liberty, unalienable rights have incalculable value as liberty cannot exist without them. Whatever 'rights' aka permissions are granted by a government are not the same thing as what the government allows can be just as easily disallowed.

The U.S Constitution is based on the concept that unalienable rights exist and it is the role of government to recognize and secure them. It is the concept that unalieanble rights exist and cannot be invented or ordained by any government..

And what is an unalienable right? It is whatever requires no contribution or participation by any other and does not infringe on anybody else's ability to enjoy and exercise their rights.

Seriously---you just invent your own definition of words ?

No. Seriously I try to use words as they are intended. I leave selective defintiions up to those who have to do that to deny what to me is the obvious.

then taken in full context the Founding Fathers stated the rights come from God--not from mother nature