Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.

How so Penny? We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist. I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean of course that you think they are the same-----natural rights advocates and theorists would vehemently disagree with you. To them God is supernatural.

Sigh. Whatever. As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept. I don't think they are the same. I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.

ahhh those who disagree who are intellectually inferior and have the wrong emotional temperament ? How truly humble of you..

check this out and tell me who the inferior intellects are.

Human Rights*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

That would be the people that keep posting links instead of arguments.

 

[Pennywise]

Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.

How so Penny? We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist. I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.

So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Remember all those comments you made about natural rights being an oxymoron? Any argument against slavery based on anything other than economics, which you don't understand, or natural rights will end up being an oxymoron.

As for your questions, I said you couldn't mount a logical argument against it, and you have to because you claim to be smarter than I am.

Its funny to see you so confident you think you can tell me my argument can only be based on economics. As for you mistaken belief I couldn't mount a logical argument against slavery please don't be naive. I can quickly dispatch your deluded, naive, assertion and send it off to the corner wearing a dunce hat.

Feel free to mount one then, just so I can prove to you that, ultimately, you have to rely on the concept of natural rights.

Feel free to prove me wrong, in the meantime I will continue to mock you for the inherent cognitive dissonance/oxymoron of believing that slavery is wrong when people have no rights.

 

[Asclepias]

Asking if 'natural rights' exist without government is like asking if the Sun and Moon exist without government.

How so Penny? We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist. I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.

So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?

Not just that but also where do they exist? I dont mind if they are invisible but the effects of those inalienable rights should be observable without man labeling them as such.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The scientists are wrong?

Do you have evidence of that, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Are scientist humans? Did the scientists label the behavior morals or did the animals? If so please provide me some proof.

I already did. If you think they are wrong feel free to pull up their observations and explain why they are wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

Sigh. Whatever. As I said some simply don't have the emotional temperament or the intellect to separate their prejudice against religion from a universal truth or concept. I don't think they are the same. I KNOW they are the same because I have studied and taught the concept and am very secure in how the Founders and those great philosophers who the Founders studied defined them.

ahhh those who disagree who are intellectually inferior and have the wrong emotional temperament ? How truly humble of you..

check this out and tell me who the inferior intellects are.

Human Rights*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

That would be the people that keep posting links instead of arguments.

LMAO---God knows we don't want any addition verification.

 

[Pennywise]

Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are scientist humans? Did the scientists label the behavior morals or did the animals? If so please provide me some proof.

Just where do scientists get their authority from anyway? Other scientists ?

Are those other scientist humans? Quantums problem is he cannot mount an argument so his tactic is to nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant.

I have mounted arguments so successful that they have driven everyone but the trolls out of this thread.

By the way, there is only one of me.

 

[Asclepias]

Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?

No.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Not true, they believed rights came from nature as they understood it. The mere fact that we now understand nature better than they did does not invalidate the theory of natural rights.

Exactly. Because most of the Founders believed in a Creator God, therefore the source of nature or natural rights to them was God given. But as I have repeatedly stated, and some not to be further mentioned have religiously ignored, most of the great philosophers who recognized and identified a concept of natural rights--the same philosophers the Founders themselves studied and quoted--did not attribute those rights to any form of deity but saw them as natural and universal truths and intended as the natural state of mankind.

Sadly for some here, if the Founders attributed anything to God in any way, it automatically becomes wrong, stupid, non existent, irrelevent, or contrived.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

In my opinion, the prejudiced and tunnel visioned and close minded demand that natural rights be a human invention. The enlightened, the one who understands and appreciates what liberty is, knows better.

Rights are a human invention whether you call them natural or not.

Ask a conservative if the right to an abortion is a natural right. 99% will say no. If there were such a thing as natural rights, however, abortion would clearly be one of them.

Conservatives want to declare some rights as natural rights, but also want to declare which rights are not.

That is invention.

Do you have some examples?

 

[Pennywise]

How so Penny? We can see the moon and the sun. We can observe its effects upon earth. We know if if all humans died out the sun and the moon would still exist. I've never seen a right without man/government saying it exists.

So because you cannot 'see' a man's inalienable rights, they do not exist?

Not just that but also where do they exist? I dont mind if they are invisible but the effects of those inalienable rights should be observable without man labeling them as such.

It takes an enlightened sensibility to perceive that. Do you believe that people have the right to control you? Do you believe that you only exist due to the good graces of government?

 

[Pennywise]

Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?

No.

They had no right to be free? Then why free them?

 

[Asclepias]

Just where do scientists get their authority from anyway? Other scientists ?

Are those other scientist humans? Quantums problem is he cannot mount an argument so his tactic is to nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant.

I have mounted arguments so successful that they have driven everyone but the trolls out of this thread.

By the way, there is only one of me.

I couldnt help but to respond to this one. You wore them out does not mean you mounted a successful argument. Your whole thing is drive people out instead of learning and teaching. You are a sad person.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yes, I know freedom scares you, you have said so many times. That does not make it evil, or even bad, it just means you need to evolve.

That said, I can guarantee you that there are evil people. Sooner or later you are going to come across an example, and realize that, despite your naive beliefs that it is just a behavior pattern that is contrary to the need to belong to a group. In fact, evil people actually prefer to be part of a group, it gives them more power. Jim Jones had no problems with belonging to a group, and he even capitalized on the desire that weak minded people have to belong to a group to spread his evil to others. Charles Manson is another example, as is McCarthy.



Even if that is true, which is actually debatable, despite your claim of superior knowledge, it is irrelevant.

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.

Funny how the last guy to start a brand new religion ignored that advice, isn't it? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.

You should be able to post where I said freedom scares me. I cant stand liars. I see you are back to your old tricks of diversion in the face of being unable to mount an argument that lasts beyond my very next post refuting it. You just earned a trip to the penalty box until you get your act together like the other adults on the thread.

You should be able to post where I said you said it. If you can't, then I suggest you go back and actually address the arguments I made instead of trying to "(N)ibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant."

 

[Asclepias]

Did Negroes have a right to be free before the "Emancipation Proclamation"?

No.

They had not right to be free? Then why free them?

Did you see anything that said they had the right to be free? Black people were not included in the all men are created equal thing our "Founders" put together. That should give some who hold the founders in great esteem a little hint as to how wrong they were capable of being.

Black people were humans. Thats why they should have been free and not enslaved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You would hope that everyone else in the world agree with you? Why would they do that?

The UN certainly wants that.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Let me get this straight, the UN, which says that "(R)ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," agrees with Asclepias, who says that inalienable rights is an oxymoron?

Do you ever wonder why people think you say really stupid things? This is why we think that.

 

[Pennywise]

If someone has you chained to a basement wall, feeding you dog food and giving you a coffee can to shit in, does that mean you no longer have the right to be free?

 

[Asclepias]

Yes, I know freedom scares you, you have said so many times. That does not make it evil, or even bad, it just means you need to evolve.

That said, I can guarantee you that there are evil people. Sooner or later you are going to come across an example, and realize that, despite your naive beliefs that it is just a behavior pattern that is contrary to the need to belong to a group. In fact, evil people actually prefer to be part of a group, it gives them more power. Jim Jones had no problems with belonging to a group, and he even capitalized on the desire that weak minded people have to belong to a group to spread his evil to others. Charles Manson is another example, as is McCarthy.



Even if that is true, which is actually debatable, despite your claim of superior knowledge, it is irrelevant.



Funny how the last guy to start a brand new religion ignored that advice, isn't it? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.

You should be able to post where I said freedom scares me. I cant stand liars. I see you are back to your old tricks of diversion in the face of being unable to mount an argument that lasts beyond my very next post refuting it. You just earned a trip to the penalty box until you get your act together like the other adults on the thread.

You should be able to post where I said you said it. If you can't, then I suggest you go back and actually address the arguments I made instead of trying to "(N)ibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant."

Its impossible you are this stupid. It was right there above your post.

Yes, I know freedom scares you, you have said so many times.