Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?

I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.

The philosophy of liberty is irrelevant at that point. Philosophies are not going to change the fact he has no liberty. Even if in this case he had rights what good are they?

If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.

Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?

That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave. However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.

My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves. Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion. I have no qualms with that.

 

[Pennywise]

The philosophy of liberty is irrelevant at that point. Philosophies are not going to change the fact he has no liberty. Even if in this case he had rights what good are they?

If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.

Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?

That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave. However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.

My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves. Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion. I have no qualms with that.

So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?

 

[Asclepias]

Ask an abused child or woman.

They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?

Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

 

[Asclepias]

If the slave believes he is subject to the master, that the master tells him what rights he has and does not have, his spirit will eventually be broken. It matters because without liberty life does not exist.

Why did your forefathers fight for freedom?

That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave. However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.

My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves. Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion. I have no qualms with that.

So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?

Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.

 

[Pennywise]

They have legal rights-----does that prevent abuse ?

Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

 

[Pennywise]

That very well could be true that the spirit could be broken if the slave gives in to the belief that its ok to be a slave. However, we are now moving to another area and explaining why rights are important. Its like I pointed out earlier. Rights simply operate on the power of suggestion.

My forefathers fought for freedom because they didn't want to be slaves. Some probably believed they had a right to be free to bolster their commitment to the notion. I have no qualms with that.

So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?

Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.

So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?

 

[Asclepias]

Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

All rights are subject to those in power. They made up the rights in the first place.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.

 

[Pennywise]

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

All rights are subject to those in power. They made up the rights in the first place.

Not in America. They recognized the truth of man's rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course not, but those 'inalienable rights' allow for redress and punitive action to be taken against the abuser.

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

You know that. I know that. We both understand the concept of the Constitution that it is the people who institute government for the purpose of securing our unalienable rights--who give government its power--rather than the other way around. I fear we have too many in public education that cannot wrap their minds around that concept and no longer teach it, which is probably why some can't get past the idea of a 'king' or other authority that orders the society we will have.

 

[Asclepias]

So they believed they had those rights even though they were not recognized. Why would they believe they had rights without government's blessing?

Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.

So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?

I'm pretty sure they did. Its a very attractive belief and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.

 

[Pennywise]

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.

Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.

 

[Asclepias]

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

All rights are subject to those in power. They made up the rights in the first place.

Not in America. They recognized the truth of man's rights.

Who are they? Was it the person working at the local pub or the people in power?

 

[Pennywise]

Probably because they saw white people no better than them walking around free and claiming the same belief in rights and freedom.

So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?

I'm pretty sure they did. Its a very attractive belief and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.

No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.

 

[Asclepias]

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.

Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.

Well personally I don't particularly admire the 3/5ths thingy.

 

[dilloduck]

This was pointed out earlier. Why not just call them rights and do the same thing instead of pretending they came from somewhere other than man?

Because if rights are not recognized as inherent in man, they are subject to those in power.

This is what our founders understood. It's why we are a Republic, not a democracy or monarchy.

You know that. I know that. We both understand the concept of the Constitution that it is the people who institute government for the purpose of securing our unalienable rights--who give government its power--rather than the other way around. I fear we have too many in public education that cannot wrap their minds around that concept and no longer teach it, which is probably why some can't get past the idea of a 'king' or other authority that orders the society we will have.

Yes ---people set up the government to protect certain specified behaviors and history has shown us that those in power CONTINUE to abuse them. Recognizing rights does nothing as far as protecting them.

 

[Asclepias]

So they believed they had inalienable rights. Without government first allowing it?

I'm pretty sure they did. Its a very attractive belief and one that gave them the hope to persevere through the abuse.

No, it's truth. Despite what the government claimed.

You should be able to prove a truth. I have a problem with calling it a truth unless I can see evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well if you want to converse with me you will stick to what I said and not what you assumed. If you need clarification ask or I simply will not address you unless I feel like it. I cant stand liars.

Are you actually going to address the arguments I made that proved you wrong, or are you going to continue to pretend I am the one that "nibble at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear you out with things that are not relevant?"

Either you stop being a liar and apologize for lying or go kick rocks. Your arguments have no merit at all simply because you are not a very wholesome person. I could care less what you want to discuss when you are a liar.

You have opted to keep focusing on irrelevant details and claim victory because you never actually read any arguments that disprove your position, why am I not surprised?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pretty much.

So that slave in the basement on the isolated island community, he has no rights because someone is controlling him. His liberty is subject to the whims of his master? The fact that he is in chains, means his rights to be free have been revoked?

I'm not asking about what he is physically capable of at that point, I am asking about the philosophy of liberty.

Some people will tell you that the slave has a right to be freed. He may have. What good does that do him ?

If he has a right to be free I can come by and kill the people that are enslaving him in order to set him free, if he doesn't, I have to walk away.

 

[Pennywise]

Even if rights are recognized in man, if you do not have the protection to back them up they are worthless-----you can scream your lungs out at you attacker--- " I HAVE RIGHTS "-----worthless.

Correct, which is why the US Constitution is so brilliant. They did their best to allow for abusive governmental power to usurp the individual. We should be on our collective knees thanking the heavens.

Well personally I don't particularly admire the 3/5ths thingy.

The 3/5ths thingy was put in to prevent slave holders from increasing the census too much, and to get less than honorable states to join the Union. It was a temporary measure that was righted in time. The Constitution allowed for that to be changed. Think about it, my friend.