Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Listening]

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.

 

[norwegen]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

 

[percysunshine]

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

Define 'Government'.

From a general evolution point of view, Australopithecus never had to produce a voter ID.

.

 

[Listening]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

This is from Thomas Jefferson:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

In Federalist 2: John Jay states:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

Now, I would be curious to know how government does not secure our rights..

And how securing them and leaving them alone are somehow mutually exclusive.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights

 

[Mojo2]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

No, Govt. is supposed to enforce the laws which protect and assure those rights.

 

[Listening]

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

Define 'Government'.

From a general evolution point of view, Australopithecus never had to produce a voter ID.

.

Government is characterized in many ways.

George Washington stated:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Read more at Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous... - George Washington at BrainyQuote

 

[Mojo2]

The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights

No, Muslim countries and dictatorships have a different definition than Americans and other free societies.

 

[Listening]

The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights

Be that as it may, government is still necessary to secure those rights.

Is there a set of natural rights government is not necessary to secure ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"rights" are a human construct.

They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.

"Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.

 

[Two Thumbs]

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.

to be clear, we don't need a vast central government with unchecked power.

we can self govern on a local level.

If I want to bang a drum at 3am, I should live away from people who want to sleep or have a special room.

with no government, I can bang my drum all I want when I want as long as I'm meaner than those around me.


no government = strongest rule = tyranny
to much government = elitist rule = tyranny


we were doing it right long ago, in the very early 1900's, but now the Fed has taken over, and things are getting bad, as planned.

 

[percysunshine]

"rights" are a human construct.

They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.

"Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.

So, would you say that Government bestows rights on the individual?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

While one may have inalienable rights ones rights mean nothing without some means to insure the rights are not taken away by someone, some group or some entity.

 

[norwegen]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

This is from Thomas Jefferson:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.

In Federalist 2: John Jay states:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

Now, I would be curious to know how government does not secure our rights..

And how securing them and leaving them alone are somehow mutually exclusive.

Yes, you're quite right. I was mistaken, supposing that by securing our rights, government grants them. Though the Constitution secures our rights against the government (i.e., the government is supposed to leave them alone), the government is supposed to secure them against other people.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"rights" are a human construct.

They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.

"Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.

So, would you say that Government bestows rights on the individual?

If governments "bestowed" rights, we wouldn't have to fight for them, now would we?

Governments are all about money and power. That's why the 1% fight against allowing even the smallest improvement to the lives of who they consider to be the servant class - you and I. They own government and government works to own us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A concept that even conservatives get wrong is that government is supposed to secure our rights. That is wrong. Government is supposed to leave our rights alone.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), restricting the right to freedom of assembly.)

In the United States the Constitution codifies our rights in the context of its case law, placing limits on the extent to which government may indeed restrict our rights.

It is this balance between the rights of the individual and the authority of government, both subject to the rule of law, which safeguards our civil liberties.

The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)), and the people clearly intended and authorized government to form a more perfect Union, through laws and measures enacted pursuant to the Constitution and its case law.

The issue, therefore, is not “[g]overnment is supposed to leave our rights alone,” rather, it’s the doctrine of judicial review which acknowledges the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court and compelling government to justify its efforts to place restrictions on citizens’ civil liberties, and when the government fails to justify those restrictions, the restrictions are invalidated.

The ‘the proper role of government,' consequently, is whatever the people and the courts determine it to be, through the democratic process and elections, or through the process of judicial review in the courts, and often times and ideally, both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While I believe in God, I have struggled with the idea that Thomas Jefferson put forth:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unalienable means (from the net): incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.

Now, if China chooses to be communist....and forbids your rights, what difference does it make if they can't "repudiate" them (refuse to accept that they exist) ? You still don't get to exercise them....and, in effect, they have been removed.

While recently reading Ezra Taft Benson's talk on the proper role of goverment, he states that the most important function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Can someone explain to me how we don't have secure rights without government ?

I just don't see it.

The form of government that exists doesn't change the fact that people had rights. If it did Obama would be called out as a hypocrite for claiming that the people of Crimea have the right to self determination and every slave revolt in history would be wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights

The definition of natural rights are those rights that exist because you are alive. I bet you can't find anyone that has a problem with that definition.

 

[The Rabbi]

"rights" are a human construct.

They're not "god given". I get expecially annoyed at the whole "god given" thing because its such a thoughtless slap in the face to all those who fought for the rights we're so lackadaisical about. Millions of died, sacrificed, been maimed and lost any possible future that includes a normal life, all so we can sit here and talk about it.

"Rights" are hard fought for and we're always at risk of losing what we have.

Wow, who'd think I'd actually agree with you one day?? Shocked. But you are correct. Rights are a societal construct, and reflective of people's general beliefs. Which is why we need to battle for them constantly. Ive discussed this often and always get to the point that no one can define the difference between rights being denied and not having rights at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem is... everyone has a different definition of natural rights

Be that as it may, government is still necessary to secure those rights.

Is there a set of natural rights government is not necessary to secure ?

All of them.

The only thing government can actually accomplish is attempting to take away rights.