What "rights" does nature give us?

[SniperFire]

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.

There's a big difference between what may be written down and the truth. They were playing to an audience for whom that sort of thing was important. I'll admit it was written down, but I don't see where it has any independent reality in nature. If I'm stronger than you, I can alienate the hell out of your rights. What are you going to do about it?

Sorry, it is much more than that. We are discussing Founding principles as to whether or not our 'rights' are inalienable or absolute.

I happen to agree with you that there is no such thing as an intrinsic 'right' to anything outside of a granting by a Creator.

Even John Locke knew this:


“For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s, pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another'

- John Locke, The State of Nature

 

[Murf76]

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.

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.

No one is saying that free will, even the free will to do evil, doesn't exist. If a man walks up to you and pops you in the mouth unprovoked, he has the free will, but not the "right" to do that. At that point, he has violated YOUR right to be left unmolested. THIS is the point at which predictable, yet preventable, strife will ensue, as you are unlikely to meekly tolerate being bashed in the mouth. Because our form of governance PROTECTS your right to exist unmolested, you have legal recourse rather than Hatfield/McCoy styled vigilantism to rely upon. A third party settles the matter, and life goes on without the blood feud.

 

[G.T.]

In my opinion, rights are arrived at through the observation and study of how best to peacefully co-exist, as a sort of preservation of those who cannot continue to exist in a warrior-dominated species. Nothing more.

 

[konradv]

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.

There's a big difference between what may be written down and the truth. They were playing to an audience for whom that sort of thing was important. I'll admit it was written down, but I don't see where it has any independent reality in nature. If I'm stronger than you, I can alienate the hell out of your rights. What are you going to do about it?

Sorry, it is much more than that. We are discussing Founding principles as to whether or not our 'rights' are inalienable or absolute.

I happen to agree with you that there is no such thing as an intrinsic 'right' to anything outside of a granting by a Creator.

Even John Locke knew this:

“For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s, pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another'

- John Locke, The State of Nature

That was Locke's opinion, not something he knew. I'm going by what I see in nature.

 

[dblack]

Now you're just playing with words. It's not society/community vs government; it's society/community/government. It's all one and the same. Whatever you want to call it, there are rules we follow. They aren't natural; they're the product of society/community/government.

This is interesting in a couple of ways.

First of all, you're still not getting the distinction between natural rights (a classification of existential freedoms), and rights protected by the government. They're really not the same thing. When the Constitution cites "inalienable rights" it's making a categorical statement about the type of freedoms that government is created to protect. That's all.

Second, this equivocation of society and government reveals a lot about the statist perspective. Government, even in it's currently bloated, overreaching form, touches only a small fraction of our social interactions. The vast bulk of what we do has nothing to do with government and is conducting voluntarily. I suppose, for those of you with a desire to see government do ever more, it makes sense to pretend they are the same thing, but that's not the case. Government is, essentially, a security contractor for society.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Now you're just playing with words. It's not society/community vs government; it's society/community/government. It's all one and the same. Whatever you want to call it, there are rules we follow. They aren't natural; they're the product of society/community/government.

ROFL! Wrong

Government is something separate and distinct from society. Only servile Obama clones believe the two things are synonymous. However, libturds would like government to expand to the point where it consumes all social functions. Thats definitely where we are headed. When we reach that point, then we will be living in a totalitarian state where government makes all decisions.

Rights are the rules of nature. Yeah, they can be violated, but whenever they are the welfare of human beings suffers as a result.

 

[bripat9643]

That was Locke's opinion, not something he knew. I'm going by what I see in nature.

ROFL! I love that.

Locks claims are just his opinions, but your claims are a fact of nature.

who should I believe, Locke or you?

 

[SniperFire]

There's a big difference between what may be written down and the truth. They were playing to an audience for whom that sort of thing was important. I'll admit it was written down, but I don't see where it has any independent reality in nature. If I'm stronger than you, I can alienate the hell out of your rights. What are you going to do about it?

Sorry, it is much more than that. We are discussing Founding principles as to whether or not our 'rights' are inalienable or absolute.

I happen to agree with you that there is no such thing as an intrinsic 'right' to anything outside of a granting by a Creator.

Even John Locke knew this:

“For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s, pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another'

- John Locke, The State of Nature

That was Locke's opinion, not something he knew. I'm going by what I see in nature.

Point being, there are those who would attempt to argue an intrinsic 'natural' right exists outside of the supernatural, citing proof-texted Locke philosophy as an example.

Rightfully, this is an argument which you godless types easily destroy.

 

[Koios]

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.

Now you're just playing with words. It's not society/community vs government; it's society/community/government. It's all one and the same. Whatever you want to call it, there are rules we follow. They aren't natural; they're the product of society/community/government.

ROFL! Wrong

Government is something separate and distinct from society. Only servile Obama clones believe the two things are synonymous. However, libturds would like government to expand to the point where it consumes all social functions. Thats definitely where we are headed. When we reach that point, then we will be living in a totalitarian state where government makes all decisions.

Rights are the rules of nature. Yeah, they can be violated, but whenever they are the welfare of human beings suffers as a result.

Absurd. Polities are what created societies, where rights became laws of the land (read: were created.)

 

[konradv]

I am saying rights are not natural or god given.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Some rights are. The kind you start out with before there is any such thing as a government or society.

You seem to have a fundamental misconception about the concept of 'natural rights'. To be fair, there's plenty of confusion to go around, as lots of people have glommed on to the idea and used it incorrectly. It's interesting to read about if you have time.

It should give you pause to think about exactly what you are railing against.

That's a good point. Because we do need government to protect our rights, and that something that gets glossed over by more extreme libertarian arguments. The thing is, that's not the same thing as government 'giving' us our rights and that's the entire point of citing 'inalienable' rights in the Constitution. They did that specifically to reject the previously held notion that rights (aka freedom) is a grant from the state or the king. It may seem like subtle sophistry, but it's actually an important shift in perspective. It sets government our servant assigned with a specific task - protecting our pre-existing rights - rather than our master, extending us rights as gifts.

Well, if you want to get into sophistry, I'm not saying rights are given to us by government, but rather that they're ones we've given to ourselves. They're not natural. In nature the strongest gets the most food, best territory and any woman he wants. We've decided that we're going to do things a little differently, the solution just happens to be called 'government'. Whether that government is good or bad is a totally different question.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, it is much more than that. We are discussing Founding principles as to whether or not our 'rights' are inalienable or absolute.

I happen to agree with you that there is no such thing as an intrinsic 'right' to anything outside of a granting by a Creator.

Even John Locke knew this:


“For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s, pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another'

- John Locke, The State of Nature

That isn't what Locke was saying. You misunderstand him.

 

[SniperFire]

sorry, it is much more than that. We are discussing founding principles as to whether or not our 'rights' are inalienable or absolute.

I happen to agree with you that there is no such thing as an intrinsic 'right' to anything outside of a granting by a creator.

Even john locke knew this:


“for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s, pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another'

- john locke, the state of nature

that isn't what locke was saying. You misunderstand him.

lol

 

[konradv]

That was Locke's opinion, not something he knew. I'm going by what I see in nature.

ROFL! I love that.

Locks claims are just his opinions, but your claims are a fact of nature.

who should I believe, Locke or you?

Believe your eyes. If a big lion and a small lion both come upon a carcass, who's going to get it?

 

[PaulS1950]

All animals and most plants exercise the right of self defence - even corals kill neighboring corals with chemicals they produce for defense and trees produce chemicals to fight insects.
They live as "free beings" even without much intelligence as defined by us.
Life continues in all its diversity.
So one could say that Life, Liberty and Defense are all natural rights.
Freedom of expression fit in there as well and as an extension of liberty comes the freedom of expression. As an extension of defense comes freedom from search and seizure of personal property.
I have yet to see one bird seize the nest of another or an animal take over the den of another without a fight.
I guess as people we think it is OK to take what another has without them fighting for it. They should just give their income to us because we "need" it more than they do.

 

[bripat9643]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

Nature gives us no rights at all. Rights are societal constructs that are created to aid the survival of a society. Over the course of many thousands of generations we have found there are certain things that aid the survival of a society, chief among them being the ability of individuals to attain status within the society in accordance with their abilities. And, of equal importance, that all are held to the same rules.

The only thing that nature gives us for sure is the abilities inherant in the DNA we inherit from our parents. And malnutrition and accident can alter that, as education and a stable childhood can enhance it.

We fail to create a society that nurtures its citizens to the max, and a society that does that will soon supplant us as the leader.

So if society decides that homosexuals have no right to marry, then no injustice is done. Is that really what you meant to say?

 

[midcan5]

If something were natural it would need no explanation, there is no such thing as a natural right, all privileges exist only in the context of society and agreement. Robinson Crusoe alone on an island would not even know what a right was. Been there done that see below.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html


"Between equal rights, force decides." Marx

 

[dblack]

I am saying rights are not natural or god given.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Some rights are. The kind you start out with before there is any such thing as a government or society.

You seem to have a fundamental misconception about the concept of 'natural rights'. To be fair, there's plenty of confusion to go around, as lots of people have glommed on to the idea and used it incorrectly. It's interesting to read about if you have time.

It should give you pause to think about exactly what you are railing against.

That's a good point. Because we do need government to protect our rights, and that something that gets glossed over by more extreme libertarian arguments. The thing is, that's not the same thing as government 'giving' us our rights and that's the entire point of citing 'inalienable' rights in the Constitution. They did that specifically to reject the previously held notion that rights (aka freedom) is a grant from the state or the king. It may seem like subtle sophistry, but it's actually an important shift in perspective. It sets government our servant assigned with a specific task - protecting our pre-existing rights - rather than our master, extending us rights as gifts.

Well, if you want to get into sophistry, I'm not saying rights are given to us by government, but rather that they're ones we've given to ourselves. They're not natural. In nature the strongest gets the most food, best territory and any woman he wants. We've decided that we're going to do things a little differently, the solution just happens to be called 'government'. Whether that government is good or bad is a totally different question.

You're still misconstruing the concept. You're fixated on a different meaning of 'natural' that has nothing to do with the philosophical term under discussion.

 

[Murf76]

There's a big difference between what may be written down and the truth. They were playing to an audience for whom that sort of thing was important. I'll admit it was written down, but I don't see where it has any independent reality in nature. If I'm stronger than you, I can alienate the hell out of your rights. What are you going to do about it?

Sorry, it is much more than that. We are discussing Founding principles as to whether or not our 'rights' are inalienable or absolute.

I happen to agree with you that there is no such thing as an intrinsic 'right' to anything outside of a granting by a Creator.

Even John Locke knew this:

“For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s, pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another'

- John Locke, The State of Nature

That was Locke's opinion, not something he knew. I'm going by what I see in nature.

Well, there's your problem. You keep trying to separate human nature from the context of civilized living. The PURPOSE of the exercise is to create civilization. What you're talking about is barbarism. Achieving barbarism wasn't our founder's goal. Achieving a civil society whereby laws are established to keep the peace was. You can't separate the question of what natural rights are from the reason why we bother to identify them and then expect to make sense of it. We observe and identify human characteristics and then harness our findings to achieve civilized ends. We do that by determining what sets people off, causing predictable breaches in the peace, and then put laws in place which minimize those sorts of incidents as well as punishing those who engage in them anyway.

 

[G.T.]

I am saying rights are not natural or god given.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Some rights are. The kind you start out with before there is any such thing as a government or society.

You seem to have a fundamental misconception about the concept of 'natural rights'. To be fair, there's plenty of confusion to go around, as lots of people have glommed on to the idea and used it incorrectly. It's interesting to read about if you have time.

It should give you pause to think about exactly what you are railing against.

That's a good point. Because we do need government to protect our rights, and that something that gets glossed over by more extreme libertarian arguments. The thing is, that's not the same thing as government 'giving' us our rights and that's the entire point of citing 'inalienable' rights in the Constitution. They did that specifically to reject the previously held notion that rights (aka freedom) is a grant from the state or the king. It may seem like subtle sophistry, but it's actually an important shift in perspective. It sets government our servant assigned with a specific task - protecting our pre-existing rights - rather than our master, extending us rights as gifts.

Well, if you want to get into sophistry, I'm not saying rights are given to us by government, but rather that they're ones we've given to ourselves. They're not natural. In nature the strongest gets the most food, best territory and any woman he wants. We've decided that we're going to do things a little differently, the solution just happens to be called 'government'. Whether that government is good or bad is a totally different question.

Totally agreed

 

[ScreamingEagle]

why not.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to kill to eat.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to defend itself.....?

Nope.

There are no rights in nature.

Kill or be killed.

does a bear shit in the woods....? or do you deny the natural right to that basic function....?

funny how Shallow disappeared before answering this simple little question....