What "rights" does nature give us?

[SniperFire]

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.

In nature, you have the right to eat or be eaten.

For a 'right' to be anything other than the product of active imagination, it must be supernatural.

 

[Oddball]

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

Of all the truly fucking stupid things you have ever said, that one has to rank as the stupidest.

Gravity is entirely natural, yet nobody can adequately explain it.

Dunce.

 

[Sallow]

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?

Wrong. The rules that govern relations among social animals are the product of nature. That means rights are the product of nature.

 

[konradv]

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.



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.

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

Then answer the OP's question and tell us what those "natural" rights are and how they have any meaning without a government to enforce them.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Duh, wrong. Society existed prior to government, which is the monopoly on the use of force. Did Indian tribes in the Americas have society? Yes, of course the did, even though they had no government.

It's remarkable to me how liberal thinking revolves entirely around the concept that government is the end-all and be-all of everything desirable in human relations. the degree of their servility is mind-boggling.

 

[bripat9643]

If something were natural it would need no explanation

Really? So the law of gravity needs no explanation?

 

[G.T.]

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

Duh, wrong. Society existed prior to government, which is the monopoly on the use of force. Did Indian tribes in the Americas have society? Yes, of course the did, even though they had no government.

It's remarkable to me how liberal thinking revolves entirely around the concept that government is the end-all and be-all of everything desirable in human relations. the degree of their servility is mind-boggling.

If you dont take arms in protest or ignore taxes and laws...your degree of servility is exactly the same, in practice. Exercising your distaste with government on a messageboard is essentially doing dick.

 

[Sallow]

^^^ This kind of shit right here is why people call you and your commie lot stupid.
No one has said that the natural rights of human beings can't be trod upon. Depriving a man of his life or his liberty doesn't mean that his "right" to those things didn't exist. THAT's why those sorts of actions are crimes.

You have to look at unalienable rights in the context of keeping the peace. What does it take for human beings to live together harmoniously? When you explore the question within that context, it's easy enough to see that predictable strife occurs when our rights are abrogated. You can't go to your neighbor's house and boldly take his property without expecting some trouble to come from it, some sort of retaliation. You can't falsely imprison people or make them slaves without consequence; the end of Apartheid, the U.S. Civil War. And why is that? ...It's because human beings are naturally inclined to be free and to protect their property.

What never fails to surprise me is just how shallow the reasoning powers of so-called liberals consistently remains. It's almost inhuman... like trained monkeys, aping human behavior, but never understanding or moved by it. You never seem to really ask yourselves "why", never really apply yourselves to the question. Sure, you started a thread, but you did it thinking that you could prove the tyranny of the mob, lead by your democratically anointed King, should be allowed to prevail over the most innate rights of human beings. And you think you've got John Locke by the balls over his writings on slavery, never realizing that all he managed to do was prove that his philosophy on human nature was correct. Abrogate the natural rights of human animals, tumult and strife ensues. As this applies to governance, people cannot live in the peace and harmony they are capable of when their natural rights are ignored or abrogated.

Go stick your own head in the yoke of slavery. There are quite a number of places you can do that on this planet. Leave the rest of us alone.

Actually.

I invite you to do just that.

It's not me that wants to wage war, restrict freedom of speech and make laws allowing dolts with guns to shoot people because of a perceived threat.

That would be you folks.

And you do this while at the same time wanting to tear down democratic institutions and forever put in it's place fascism or theocracy or both.

We Americans like our government. We like our Democratic institutions.

And you Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists, Oligarchists and every other nonsensical Conservative form of government are invited to take your bull and start a new nation.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

Awesome. You idiots never fail to be consistent.

Note that WE are not the ones who believe that the NATURAL RIGHTS of human beings don't exist, or that the U.S. Constitution which guarantees them should be set aside. WE are not the ones who believe that Mob Rule should subordinate the inherent rights of the minority. So, who are you calling "fascist", Fascist?
The very fact that you started this particular thread is proof that you don't understand WHY people should be free. This country was founded on OUR philosophy, not yours. You don't have any right to usurp our Liberty and they claim that WE are bothering YOU. Our whole ideology is about "leaving other people alone". It's you assholes who can't manage to DO IT.

"Your' Philosophy?

The only thing consistent with your philosophy, Fascist, that was part of the founding..was slavery. That and that women should not vote and white christians rule the roost.

Those things were changed.

It's not the same country anymore..which is why I showed you the way out.

Black folk aren't slaves, women can vote and anyone can be in power.

Your "leaving other people alone" crapola ceased when you folks attacked Iraq.

 

[Koios]

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

Duh, wrong. Society existed prior to government, which is the monopoly on the use of force. Did Indian tribes in the Americas have society? Yes, of course the did, even though they had no government.

It's remarkable to me how liberal thinking revolves entirely around the concept that government is the end-all and be-all of everything desirable in human relations. the degree of their servility is mind-boggling.

Name one.

 

[Murf76]

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

But you and your lot aren't socialists, right?

Our NATURAL RIGHTS exist whether we identify them or not. They exist whether we're alone on a desert island, or surrounded by a crowd on a New York subway. They exist even when some of us are too obtuse and/or treacherous to see them. Just because you can't offend anyone else's rights if you have no contact with other human beings doesn't mean that the rights themselves don't exist. The moment another human being is added, there is potential for violations to these inherent rights to happen.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

That's what natural rights signify. That you own yourself. That you are your own king, not the subject of another.

Is this not natural? Is man an unatural being to this planet? Is that your argument?

And as for the biggest ge4ts the best, it's wrong. We're not barbarians. Strength is a versatile attribute in man. Some are strong in physical brute force, while others are cunning and can out smart that brute.

It's not that simple for man. We're not instinctive mammals. We're intelligent, rational beings. Well, some of us anyway.

 

[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?

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

When has anyone claimed that any lion has a right to some random carcass laying in the ground?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Duh, wrong. Society existed prior to government, which is the monopoly on the use of force. Did Indian tribes in the Americas have society? Yes, of course the did, even though they had no government.

It's remarkable to me how liberal thinking revolves entirely around the concept that government is the end-all and be-all of everything desirable in human relations. the degree of their servility is mind-boggling.

Name one.

The Lakota Sioux

 

[konradv]

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

Duh, wrong. Society existed prior to government, which is the monopoly on the use of force. Did Indian tribes in the Americas have society? Yes, of course the did, even though they had no government.

It's remarkable to me how liberal thinking revolves entirely around the concept that government is the end-all and be-all of everything desirable in human relations. the degree of their servility is mind-boggling.

They had chiefs and elders. If you went against them, there'd be hell to pay. That's 'government' in my book.

I'm not being servile. I just don't see government as "the other"; I see it as "us".

 

[Sallow]

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

But you and your lot aren't socialists, right?

Our NATURAL RIGHTS exist whether we identify them or not. They exist whether we're alone on a desert island, or surrounded by a crowd on a New York subway. They exist even when some of us are too obtuse and/or treacherous to see them. Just because you can't offend anyone else's rights if you have no contact with other human beings doesn't mean that the rights themselves don't exist. The moment another human being is added, there is potential for violations to these inherent rights to happen.

 

[Sallow]

Duh, wrong. Society existed prior to government, which is the monopoly on the use of force. Did Indian tribes in the Americas have society? Yes, of course the did, even though they had no government.

It's remarkable to me how liberal thinking revolves entirely around the concept that government is the end-all and be-all of everything desirable in human relations. the degree of their servility is mind-boggling.

Name one.

The Lakota Sioux

 

[konradv]

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?

When has anyone claimed that any lion has a right to some random carcass laying in the ground?

That's just the point. Without government the big lion gets it every time.

 

[jillian]

read John Locke

that's only one philosopher. there are many who disagree with him.

 

[jillian]

To be on top of the food chain

a shark, a bear and a tiger might disagree.

 

[Sallow]

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

When has anyone claimed that any lion has a right to some random carcass laying in the ground?

That's just the point. Without government the big lion gets it every time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M]Who's on first? - YouTube[/ame]