How do you explain Natural Rights to a Liberal who believes rights depend on Govt?

[Curried Goats]

As a woman., I thought it was a copout for a woman to abdicate responsibility, since she actually was the one whose body was going through the changes when pregnancy occurred.

But then I'm a poor example, since I managed to make it through my entire productive life without getting pregnant. Gee whiz. Why can't every woman do that?



.

Could be you're just not at that great a risk of pregnancy given the requirements....

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Once again you prove a that all you have is hate, lies and propaganda. You can't even defend your hatred of women with anything other than lies.

I don't hate women. I hate sluts.

Nice try, loser.



.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A friend was alarmed I would endorse any kind of Conservative or Republican narrative or agenda seen as a threat to women's rights. How do you explain that if you already depend on govt for rights then you are not free?

Natural rights are those you have when there is no government - you can go where you want, do what you want, say what you want, worship how you want, defend yourself how you want, etc., etc, etc.
That is, you have the right of self-determination.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US supreme court gone as low as they could be.

True - but since 2000 or so, they have improved.
2022 was a banner year in this respect..

 

[Curried Goats]

Natural rights are those you have when there is no government - you can go where you want, do what you want, say what you want, worship how you want, defend yourself how you want, etc., etc, etc.
That is, you have the right of self-determination.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

1. Name one of these "rights" you have outside of government.

2. If they exist outside of government why do you need government to secure them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't KNOW is correct. The mere fact that you're prepared to give MORE rights to a fetus than you are willing to give to the woman, demonstrates that you think women aren't people with rights of their own.

This is a lie.
The restriction of abortions based on the development of the fetus does not give the fetus rights - it recognizes the compelling interest of the state to protect said fetus.

No right is absolute.
No right is unlimited.
This includes abortion, as recognized under Roe, as evidenced by the fact 47 states had restrictions, limitations, and even prohibitions of abortion.

 

[Curried Goats]

This is a lie.
The restriction of abortions based on the development of the fetus does not give the fetus rights - it recognizes the compelling interest of the state to protect said fetus.

No right is absolute.
No right is unlimited.
This includes abortion, as recognized under Roe, as evidenced by the fact 47 states had restrictions, limitations, and even prohibitions of abortion.

Freedom is absolute and unlimited however. Well limited only by your ability. That's what exists before government. Government puts restrictions on absolute freedom and the boundaries of these limits are your "rights". They are created by government. Clearly.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Once again you prove a that all you have is hate, lies and propaganda. You can't even defend your hatred of women with anything other than lies.

/——-/ Tell is about men playing on woman’s sports. Any opinion on Keri Lake? Sarah Palin?

 

[emilynghiem]

Natural rights are those you have when there is no government - you can go where you want, do what you want, say what you want, worship how you want, defend yourself how you want, etc., etc, etc.
That is, you have the right of self-determination.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Dear frigidweirdo and M14 Shooter
There are differences between natural occurring rights and political rights relying on govt:
1. Right to life is given by nature and not created by man or govt
2. Right to defense is a natural reaction but right to bear arms depends on the agreement to enforce laws not violate them which is abuse of weapons or force (same with govt only having authority to enforce laws not violate them)
3. Right to marriage is confusing terminology and needs to be separated as A. Civil rights to govt-recognized contracts involving property or finances or legal custody that people agree to authorize through govt B. Personal social spiritual or religious relations or rituals of "marriage" that the state has no business regulating unless people consent to that and want a public official to preside in official capacity
4. Right to vote involves politically decided rules and process that aren't naturally occurring but relative. Right to consent dissent object and petition as part of due process and defense and representation is a natural process for people, but the system is relative so that becomes part of what govt is designed to establish rules for.
5. Right to health care depends on who is providing services and how these are paid for. Christian spiritual healing is free and a natural right and responsibility, but the medical system is manmade and relies on people choosing where to invest resources and labor.
The govt could manage the equal distribution of facilities (whether schools clinics hospitals etc) proportional to population and establish sites per electoral college districts. As part of public security and safety.
But the programs and policies run inside schools and clinics are relative to the people's beliefs and demands, such as different beliefs about prochoice abc prolife policies, that are individual not for govt to mandate unless there is consensus.

The biggest issue is people believe govt can mandate their beliefs when they agree, but don't want other people abusing govt when they don't agree.

Libertarians and Anarchists call this Statism. The wall I run into is when people don't agree who to blame and divide against each other so the actually problems never get resolved unless we find ways to work together.

 

[Curried Goats]

Dear frigidweirdo and M14 Shooter
There are differences between natural occurring rights and political rights relying on govt:
1. Right to life is given by nature and not created by man or govt
2. Right to defense is a natural reaction but right to bear arms depends on the agreement to enforce laws not violate them which is abuse of weapons or force (same with govt only having authority to enforce laws not violate them)

It's misleading to call what exists in nature, naturally occuring rights. You don't have any right to life in nature, instead, by your very nature you are alive. You don't have a right to self defense in nature, you may or may not have the ability to do so.

 

[emilynghiem]

Perhaps you could list your rights that arent guaranteed by government.

The way I've seen this explained : the Bill of Rights spells out the natural democratic process the Govt cannot be abused to abridge. So the laws are a contract between people and functions of govt, agreeing on limits.

Otherwise it makes no sense: how can rights be inalienable, how can they come from Nature yet "rely on govt" to establish? The explanation is the laws of democratic governance exist by human nature, but by this very process, people communicate and establish written agreements amongst each other to respect those rights and process. The laws established in writing by agreement make those principles statuotory.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Name one of these "rights" you have outside of government.

2. If they exist outside of government why do you need government to secure them?

1. Free exercise of religion
A. People have been able to practice Christianity without relying on Govt to endorse this. So why can't people exercise and express their LGBT beliefs without requiring Govt endorse them?
B. The real issue appears to be:
Do people respect each other's beliefs or not? If people agree to respect the free exercise and expression of others, equally as their own choices, that called respecting the Golden Rule

Similar with
2. Respect for free speech
3. Freedom of the press
4. Right to petition for redress of grievances
5. Due process of laws
6. Right of defense and security in our persons houses and effects
Etc.

What I find in general:
First people need to agree to respect each other's rights beliefs and principles by common standards;
then
Secondly, we can agree how to implement and enforce common policies through either public policies and govt or other entities such as schools, church or nonprofit organizations, even political parties, corporations and media.

If we start off by agreeing on the principles and process, then
Thirdly, when conflicts or grievances arise, we can agree to a process for redressing and resolving differences to maintain or restore the standards that were otherwise violated.

Govt reflects the consent of the people. The political process should be used to resolve objections and complaints of abuse and violations to bring about reforms, corrections and solutions.

The Golden Rule applies where people agree that if we want our rights respected, we agree to enforce these equally for ourselves and others. This people become our own govt where we embrace and embody equal justice and responsibility for principles and standards we want in society.

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear frigidweirdo and M14 Shooter
There are differences between natural occurring rights and political rights relying on govt:
1. Right to life is given by nature and not created by man or govt
2. Right to defense is a natural reaction but right to bear arms depends on the agreement to enforce laws not violate them which is abuse of weapons or force (same with govt only having authority to enforce laws not violate them)
3. Right to marriage is confusing terminology and needs to be separated as A. Civil rights to govt-recognized contracts involving property or finances or legal custody that people agree to authorize through govt B. Personal social spiritual or religious relations or rituals of "marriage" that the state has no business regulating unless people consent to that and want a public official to preside in official capacity
4. Right to vote involves politically decided rules and process that aren't naturally occurring but relative. Right to consent dissent object and petition as part of due process and defense and representation is a natural process for people, but the system is relative so that becomes part of what govt is designed to establish rules for.
5. Right to health care depends on who is providing services and how these are paid for. Christian spiritual healing is free and a natural right and responsibility, but the medical system is manmade and relies on people choosing where to invest resources and labor.
The govt could manage the equal distribution of facilities (whether schools clinics hospitals etc) proportional to population and establish sites per electoral college districts. As part of public security and safety.
But the programs and policies run inside schools and clinics are relative to the people's beliefs and demands, such as different beliefs about prochoice abc prolife policies, that are individual not for govt to mandate unless there is consensus.

The biggest issue is people believe govt can mandate their beliefs when they agree, but don't want other people abusing govt when they don't agree.

Libertarians and Anarchists call this Statism. The wall I run into is when people don't agree who to blame and divide against each other so the actually problems never get resolved unless we find ways to work together.

The "naturally occurring rights" are like religion, they're fiction.

A natural right to life? How on earth do you figure that one out? There's a food chain with one animal eating another. Humans alone have been murdering each other for a long, long, long time.


No right to defense either, just a survival instinct.

The thing is, you've just listed things you think. You haven't shown there's any "natural right", and you'll never be able to because it's absurd.

 

[surada]

Exactly Emily, my rights come from me, my higher power and I will defend anyone's rights any time any place, I want you to be free as me

Natural rights is a beautiful idea.. philosophical, idealistic even religious.. but only upheld by government.

 

[surada]

1. Free exercise of religion
A. People have been able to

Well yeah. The constitution and amendments guarantee freedom of religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

The "naturally occurring rights" are like religion, they're fiction.

A natural right to life? How on earth do you figure that one out? There's a food chain with one animal eating another. Humans alone have been murdering each other for a long, long, long time.


No right to defense either, just a survival instinct.

The thing is, you've just listed things you think. You haven't shown there's any "natural right", and you'll never be able to because it's absurd.

By nature, people defend and exercise this "right" -- like defending our will, consent etc. Maybe you use a different term. Do you call it human nature, conscience or natural laws that make people respond to threats by defending their own interests?

What do you call the instinct by which people automatically defend their life and liberty from perceived threat of abuse oppression deprivation or attack?

 

[BS Filter]

The US supreme court gone as low as they could be.

Yes, by adhering to the Constitution. Moron.

 

[frigidweirdo]

By nature, people defend and exercise this "right" -- like defending our will, consent etc. Maybe you use a different term. Do you call it human nature, conscience or natural laws that make people respond to threats by defending their own interests?

What do you call the instinct by which people automatically defend their life and liberty from perceived threat of abuse oppression deprivation or attack?

Yes, it appears you're using the wrong word. "right" is not the right word. Just because someone does something innately, doesn't mean it's a "right".

A "right" is something which gives you power taken from the power of those who have most of the power.

"Natural rights" have been a part of philosophy for quite a long time, but then so too has "God".
To me it seems pointless. You say you have the natural right to self defense. But this "natural right" does NOTHING. It doesn't mean you can defend yourself, it doesn't mean anything.

In theory you have a "natural right" to do everything, a "natural right" to kill other people, for example. Because it doesn't confer anything upon you.

Power is power. The ONLY WAY to keep some of that power is that other people respect that something exists and that you are entitled to that power. In the US there is a right to self defense, people recognize this as a Constitutional right. The government, the police, the armed forces especially accept this, so you can have this power.

In China they don't accept this. So you don't have this power. Simple as. Doesn't matter whether you or anyone else thinks there's a "natural right" to self defense at all.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well yeah. The constitution and amendments guarantee freedom of religion.

I'm saying it only works if PEOPLE agree to respect and enforce those standards

Look at what happens if people DONT respect each other's beliefs and creeds:
1. Look at cases where people voted to ban same sex marriage and this had to be rejected as "unconstitutional"
2. Then it flipped the other way, and people fought whether rejecting BANS as unconstitutional means
A. Then it is constitutional for states to endorse same sex marriages as public policy for everyone
B. Or no, the states still need to decide legislatively on policies
While
3. Libertarians and independent political positions argue that marriage should not be decided by govt in the first place, or it's unconstitutional either way, to establish or prohibit or regulate a relative belief in who or what constitutes a private marriage

The Govt still reflects the people , and whether our laws and standards have integrity and authority depends on people which Govt serves not dictates to.

People are supposed to exercise our freedom of choice to decide, and Govt is supposed to follow what we agree to delegate and authorize.

If Govt were to disappear overnight, we'd be back to conventions of parties trying to organize platforms statewide and trying to get other large party groups across states to sign on and unite under the others to build a consensus. Similar to the Native American leagues of tribal nations, the Continental Congress and the conventions to hash out the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Right now, party conventions meet to form their platforms and to nominate candidates to CLOBBER other parties and their candidates.

What if we change the use of parties to represent their own members and interests, like States, then Collaborate and form a Union of Parties like the 13 colonies that defended their own sovereign interests while agreeing to a national level for governing between parties or states?

What if we use the independent nature of media to communicate between parties to address conflicts and objections and facilitate agreement on reforms and solutions?

We already have parties and media operating outside govt. Why not use these to facilitate democratic process so people can represent defend and or exercise their own rights freedoms beliefs and interests?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

They don't actually believe in God. So they believe "rights" are voted on in a democracy. And you're at the mercy of your government in a leftist totalitarian dictatorship.

You're wasting your breath. Might as well try to teach you dog algebra