Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If they're not given by nature, then they must be given by government, because without it they're a daydream at best.
they are not given by government. They are simply not taken away by government.
If I were to live on a secluded island, I can scream fire anytime I want.
Government took that right away from me. There are times I am not prmitted to scream fire.
If you live by yourself on that island, you can do whatever you like. It's when the second person arrives that complications begin. Without rules that we usually call 'government, if you're stronger you can continue to do what you want with impunity, but if you're not without government, you're at the mercy of the other guy. That's nature.
With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
Natural rights, if they exist, would not have been invented by a small group of men in the 18th century.
Abortion is a natural right by the laws of nature that predate all modern fabrications of government.
Rhetoric....unless you can back it up.
What law(s) of nature makes abortion a natural right?
Now dont go on about how you can kill a fetus naturally....I know one can do that...that would make it a natural action..........but what makes it a natural RIGHT?
Ah, see,
now the various opinions of MEN come into deciding what are and aren't natural rights.
How is that dispute settled?
How can rights have come from the Creator, if they come from the decisions of MEN?
1. Men decide that rights came from the Creator
2. Men then decide, via their own invented decision-making process, what those rights are.
3. Thus is born the government of rights
4. Thus government, not the Creator, is the source of the rights.
read John Locke
I have.
He's wrong about "natural rights".
Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.
In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.
And by the animals in that group.
Sound familiar?
Yes, we are at the top of the food chain and yes we can toss our worldly possessions and live in the woods. We have done it before.
Stalin and mao would love you.
Stupid insult but -
You really believe that you could go out in the woods, NO shoes, NO clothes, NO NOTHING and -- What? Build a shopping mall?
TakeastepbackwardMans ability to create guns, clothes, traps come from a natural ability to adapt and have thumbs, fucker. Are you next going to argue that man is an alien to this "nature"?
Jesus you turds are fucking one dimensional
REALLY stupid insult, but -
This is even better. No clothes, no shoes, no tools and you're gonna build guns, make clothes and build traps BEFORE you freeze to death?
More than half of us now live in cities where the closest they get to animals is on their plate and they have no idea how it came to be there. Yes, the natural world is alien to most and they like it that way.
TMHarleyTechnology is part of evolution of the human species. Evolution has put us on top of the food chain.
Thank you for simply commenting without adding a childish insult.
Yabut, if you had to leave it all behind, just you, starkers, out in the middle of no where, our evolution would not save you in time. Yes, you could build traps, shelter, eventually make clothing but no where near fast enough.
If they're not given by nature, then they must be given by government, because without it they're a daydream at best.
As we are Founded, out inalienable rights are granted by 'Nature's God.'
You could argue that America was founded on a lie, which is a tiny minority opinion, but which is probably what we would expect from a commie atheist.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Actually, yes they are given to you by nature.when people speak of natural rights, they are not referring to rights given to them by nature.
Your argument is that they only "rights" are those given to us by the potentate or the biggest mob, who may remove said "rights", by force if necessary, as caprice may find most expedient.
It is a philosophy based 100% upon aggression.
Check your history.
Most countries are formed by aggressive actions of one "mob" against another "mob".
Wrong. "Countries" are formed by their abilities to procure resources, create things and sell/buy them to others. Aggressive actions are usually the result of some or one infringing upon the natural rights of another. This is what sparks conflict of such magnitutde.
Actually, yes they are given to you by nature.when people speak of natural rights, they are not referring to rights given to them by nature.
Check your history.
Most countries are formed by aggressive actions of one "mob" against another "mob".
Wrong. "Countries" are formed by their abilities to procure resources, create things and sell/buy them to others. Aggressive actions are usually the result of some or one infringing upon the natural rights of another. This is what sparks conflict of such magnitutde.
Perhaps in a libertarian dream world that's how countries would be formed, but history tells us otherwise. Countries were formed to acquire and/or protect resources. The British were quite aggressive in building their Empire. How were people on the other side of the world "infringing on their natural rights"?
As we are Founded, out inalienable rights are granted by 'Nature's God.'
You could argue that America was founded on a lie, which is a tiny minority opinion, but which is probably what we would expect from a commie atheist.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
That is the loaded question logical fallacy.
It is one thing for you to be a lost heathen, but another altogether to deny that The Declaration of Independence is one of our Founding Documents and the primary source for our understanding - as a FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE - as to the nature and source of our inalienable rights.
As I said, few would agree with your extremist take. You are a freak.
Actually, yes they are given to you by nature.when people speak of natural rights, they are not referring to rights given to them by nature.
That's a daydream. Rights are determined by how well you can defend them. Difficult to do by oneself, so we usually band together and call it 'government'.
Check your history.
Most countries are formed by aggressive actions of one "mob" against another "mob".
Wrong. "Countries" are formed by their abilities to procure resources, create things and sell/buy them to others. Aggressive actions are usually the result of some or one infringing upon the natural rights of another. This is what sparks conflict of such magnitutde.
Perhaps in a libertarian dream world that's how countries would be formed, but history tells us otherwise. Countries were formed to acquire and/or protect resources. The British were quite aggressive in building their Empire. How were people on the other side of the world "infringing on their natural rights"?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
That is the loaded question logical fallacy.
It is one thing for you to be a lost heathen, but another altogether to deny that The Declaration of Independence is one of our Founding Documents and the primary source for our understanding - as a FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE - as to the nature and source of our inalienable rights.
As I said, few would agree with your extremist take. You are a freak.
Just like your loaded comment. If I argue with it, I must be "a commie atheist". If you don't like the result, don't play the game, crybaby.
Wrong. "Countries" are formed by their abilities to procure resources, create things and sell/buy them to others. Aggressive actions are usually the result of some or one infringing upon the natural rights of another. This is what sparks conflict of such magnitutde.
Perhaps in a libertarian dream world that's how countries would be formed, but history tells us otherwise. Countries were formed to acquire and/or protect resources. The British were quite aggressive in building their Empire. How were people on the other side of the world "infringing on their natural rights"?
That's what I just got through saying before you interjected with "libertarian dream world", spanky. And the British EMPIRE, like ALL EMPIRES, including the current US Empire, procure land/resources through force/violence....AKA infringing on others natural rights.
That is the loaded question logical fallacy.
It is one thing for you to be a lost heathen, but another altogether to deny that The Declaration of Independence is one of our Founding Documents and the primary source for our understanding - as a FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE - as to the nature and source of our inalienable rights.
As I said, few would agree with your extremist take. You are a freak.
Just like your loaded comment. If I argue with it, I must be "a commie atheist". If you don't like the result, don't play the game, crybaby.
There is nothing to argue. You either admit that the source of our inalienable rights are based in the supernatural as detailed in our Founding documents, or you don't.
You said aggressive actions were the RESULT of one's infringing on the natural rights of others. So how is an imperial state's aggression the result of having their rights violated? You're turning the argument on its head. I'm sticking with my "dream world" comment until you start making sense. You seem to be taking which ever side suits you at the moment.
Aggressive actions are usually the result of some or one infringing upon the natural rights of another.
I am saying rights are not natural or god given.
It's a pretty simple concept.
It should give you pause to think about exactly what you are railing against.
Actually, yes they are given to you by nature.
That's a daydream. Rights are determined by how well you can defend them. Difficult to do by oneself, so we usually band together and call it 'government'.
No, we don't. Again. We "band together" and form society/community. But you love government like a religious person loves their god, apparently. It's all about the government.
With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?
