What "rights" does nature give us?

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Natural Law IS science, dummy. Why the fuck are you people incapable of grasping that? Natural rights are based on OBSERVABLE human behavior and the PREDICTABLE trouble that ensues when those rights are oppressed. If you enslave human beings, their natural inclination is to free themselves. Stuff a gag in a man's mouth, he'll attempt to remove it. Steal from him, he'll retaliate if he can.

Again.... the CONTEXT is about governance. How do we create a society where human beings can live together in peace and harmony? Our particular system of government is designed to maximize that by PROTECTING the inherent rights of citizens.

Who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?

If they were endowed by a Creator, why didn't that Creator specify them, so as to eliminate doubt and conflict?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

If you reference our Founding documents, you will quickly see that America was founded on the acknowledgement that our rights are intrinsic and granted by the Creator.

Then the right to an abortion is a natural right granted by the Creator. Confirmed by the constitutional law.

Yes, you have the right to an abortion. Except that baby has the right to life, and you dont have the right to someone elses services. So you can go cut it out with a clothes hanger if no one will perform the service. But you might be prosecute under the law due to that childs constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit.

 

[Brawd]

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.

Natural Law IS science, dummy. Why the fuck are you people incapable of grasping that? Natural rights are based on OBSERVABLE human behavior and the PREDICTABLE trouble that ensues when those rights are oppressed. If you enslave human beings, their natural inclination is to free themselves. Stuff a gag in a man's mouth, he'll attempt to remove it. Steal from him, he'll retaliate if he can.

Again.... the CONTEXT is about governance. How do we create a society where human beings can live together in peace and harmony? Our particular system of government is designed to maximize that by PROTECTING the inherent rights of citizens.

Who gets to decide what is or isn't a natural right?

If they were endowed by a Creator, why didn't that Creator specify them, so as to eliminate doubt and conflict?

Locke calls it the invisible hand.

 

[bripat9643]

As rule, your ability to see something is not what determines it being there. Noodle on it; you might get it, but I ain't holding out a lot of hope.

Why don't you quote the text that you think makes a difference and save us all a lot of trouble? I'm not a mind reader.

No prob ..

They followed his lead. He didn't rule them. Anyone of them could have refused to go along with him anytime he wanted.

Leader and ruler are synonymous in societies. Obama leads the "free world." Alfred ruled the Anglo-Saxons, in the land of Wessex, which was the precursor of the British Crown.

That doesn't change a thing. I stand by my comments.

 

[bripat9643]

Locke calls it the invisible hand.

Adam Smith was the man who coined the term "invisible hand."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Try it on a NYC subway platform and see what happens.

one has the right to go.....where to go is another issue....

So I can go in my pants on the subway platform, but not in the corner?

I need to seek council from the Pride on this one......

yes of course....even the Pride has 'rules' where to go....and Shallow doesn't think animals have natural rights.....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, well, Lions don't have thumbs and can't even flush the toilet. So, the OP argument is invalid. But we knew that already.

 

[there4eyeM]

Animals have all the rights humans assign to them and, to the extent that humans are natural, those are natural rights.

 

[Koios]

Yeah, well, Lions don't have thumbs and can't even flush the toilet. So, the OP argument is invalid. But we knew that already.

Thumbs are not needed to flush a toilet. But it helps in making them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Animals have all the rights humans assign to them and, to the extent that humans are natural, those are natural rights.

humans aren't animals too....?

humans aren't natural....? (excepting libs of course)

 

[Koios]

Why don't you quote the text that you think makes a difference and save us all a lot of trouble? I'm not a mind reader.

No prob ..

Leader and ruler are synonymous in societies. Obama leads the "free world." Alfred ruled the Anglo-Saxons, in the land of Wessex, which was the precursor of the British Crown.

That doesn't change a thing. I stand by my comments.

I didn't expect it to. Your mental lock-down is pretty apparent.

But thanks for sharing all the same.

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't change a thing. I stand by my comments.

I didn't expect it to. Your mental lock-down is pretty apparent.

But thanks for sharing all the same.

Yeah, my lock-down on reality is quite firm.

Bullshit has no effect on me.

 

[there4eyeM]

Animals have all the rights humans assign to them and, to the extent that humans are natural, those are natural rights.

humans aren't animals too....?

humans aren't natural....? (excepting libs of course)

The statement was inclusive.

 

[jillian]

That doesn't change a thing. I stand by my comments.

I didn't expect it to. Your mental lock-down is pretty apparent.

But thanks for sharing all the same.

Yeah, my lock-down on reality is quite firm.

Bullshit has no effect on me.

you have a lock-down on reality?

interesting. one can't tell that from reading your posts.

and i think you mean FACTS have no effect on you.

 

[Brawd]

Locke calls it the invisible hand.

Adam Smith was the man who coined the term "invisible hand."

Thanks I just confused the two, I was studying them last semester at school.

Anyway in the video I posted they pointed out in lockes

“The Treatises of government” (the important points regarding resources and goods being, there must be enough left over for others, you must not let it spoil, and you must combine it with your labor). Now what he also says that kind of drops the ball, is about money- “the ‘one thing’ that blocks this is the invention of money. and men’s tacit agreement to put a value on it.” What this means for resources is the ability to over consume by few people or parties with alot of money; which leaves the rest of the world’s population unable to purchase these increasingly expensive resources. So now we have “money being the determinant of people’s standard of living rather than the availibility of resources.”

It almost makes it sound like God is the monetary system, because both adam smith and john locke make God references in their writings.

Just weird to me.

What do you think about it?

 

[Koios]

That doesn't change a thing. I stand by my comments.

I didn't expect it to. Your mental lock-down is pretty apparent.

But thanks for sharing all the same.

Yeah, my lock-down on reality is quite firm.

Bullshit has no effect on me.

Neither does reality, it seems. What's wrong with Obama is the "leader" and Alfred the Great "ruled?"

Is that bullshit, or reality? Oh wait; neither have an effect on you.

Scratch that.

 

[bripat9643]

Locke calls it the invisible hand.

Adam Smith was the man who coined the term "invisible hand."

Thanks I just confused the two, I was studying them last semester at school.

Anyway in the video I posted they pointed out in lockes

“The Treatises of government” (the important points regarding resources and goods being, there must be enough left over for others, you must not let it spoil, and you must combine it with your labor). Now what he also says that kind of drops the ball, is about money- “the ‘one thing’ that blocks this is the invention of money. and men’s tacit agreement to put a value on it.” What this means for resources is the ability to over consume by few people or parties with alot of money; which leaves the rest of the world’s population unable to purchase these increasingly expensive resources. So now we have “money being the determinant of people’s standard of living rather than the availibility of resources.”

It almost makes it sound like God is the monetary system, because both adam smith and john locke make God references in their writings.

Just weird to me.

What do you think about it?

I think whatever author you are quoting misunderstands Locke.

 

[Oddball]

Locke calls it the invisible hand.

Adam Smith was the man who coined the term "invisible hand."

Thanks I just confused the two, I was studying them last semester at school.

Anyway in the video I posted they pointed out in lockes

“The Treatises of government” (the important points regarding resources and goods being, there must be enough left over for others, you must not let it spoil, and you must combine it with your labor). Now what he also says that kind of drops the ball, is about money- “the ‘one thing’ that blocks this is the invention of money. and men’s tacit agreement to put a value on it.” What this means for resources is the ability to over consume by few people or parties with alot of money; which leaves the rest of the world’s population unable to purchase these increasingly expensive resources. So now we have “money being the determinant of people’s standard of living rather than the availibility of resources.”

It almost makes it sound like God is the monetary system, because both adam smith and john locke make God references in their writings.

Just weird to me.

What do you think about it?

I think I'll take the invisible hand over the one that keeps picking my pocket, supposedly for my own good.

 

[Brawd]

Adam Smith was the man who coined the term "invisible hand."

Thanks I just confused the two, I was studying them last semester at school.

Anyway in the video I posted they pointed out in lockes

“The Treatises of government” (the important points regarding resources and goods being, there must be enough left over for others, you must not let it spoil, and you must combine it with your labor). Now what he also says that kind of drops the ball, is about money- “the ‘one thing’ that blocks this is the invention of money. and men’s tacit agreement to put a value on it.” What this means for resources is the ability to over consume by few people or parties with alot of money; which leaves the rest of the world’s population unable to purchase these increasingly expensive resources. So now we have “money being the determinant of people’s standard of living rather than the availibility of resources.”

It almost makes it sound like God is the monetary system, because both adam smith and john locke make God references in their writings.

Just weird to me.

What do you think about it?

I think whatever author you are quoting misunderstands Locke.

sorry bout that here's the link.

Looking at Our Resources From an Economic Standpoint | co300ricardo

What's wrong with being a resource based economy ?

 

[Brawd]

Adam Smith was the man who coined the term "invisible hand."

Thanks I just confused the two, I was studying them last semester at school.

Anyway in the video I posted they pointed out in lockes

“The Treatises of government” (the important points regarding resources and goods being, there must be enough left over for others, you must not let it spoil, and you must combine it with your labor). Now what he also says that kind of drops the ball, is about money- “the ‘one thing’ that blocks this is the invention of money. and men’s tacit agreement to put a value on it.” What this means for resources is the ability to over consume by few people or parties with alot of money; which leaves the rest of the world’s population unable to purchase these increasingly expensive resources. So now we have “money being the determinant of people’s standard of living rather than the availibility of resources.”

It almost makes it sound like God is the monetary system, because both adam smith and john locke make God references in their writings.

Just weird to me.

What do you think about it?

I think I'll take the invisible hand over the one that keeps picking my pocket, supposedly for my own good.