Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you confused by facts?

no---post a few pertinent ones

Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court. This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again. He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.

Do you have an plan to actually address the points I raised, or are you going to continue nibbling at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear me out with things that are impertinent?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Quantum has to create diversions. He is notorious for being unable to mount an argument so he picks at your heels like this other dude name Unk. Any other intelligent person knows exactly what I mean. For him you have to spell it out so he gets some satisfaction and feels like he is actually participating.

Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?

Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.

Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.

No, the point is that I am enjoying myself, the participation part was me tearing your arguments apart and then laughing as you ran around redefining all the terms in order to declare yourself the winner.

 

[Asclepias]

no---post a few pertinent ones

Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court. This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again. He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.

Do you have an plan to actually address the points I raised, or are you going to continue nibbling at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear me out with things that are impertinent?

Let me know when you have some pertinent points and I will address them. Until you learn to stay on topic I will only play with you when bored.

 

[Asclepias]

Aren't you the guy that argued that the fact that limestone melts. which makes seamless gaps between large blocks of it when it is exposed to thousands of years of rain, proves that advanced technology built the pyramids?

Mocking you might be a diversion, but it is actually making a point.

Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.

No, the point is that I am enjoying myself, the participation part was me tearing your arguments apart and then laughing as you ran around redefining all the terms in order to declare yourself the winner.

I know you enjoy when I pay attention to you so i will stop. You show your sadness when you think this is about winning instead of mutually improving your knowledge. You are the epitome of a loser with a capital L.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pretty soon Quantum will be debating the merits of having a camera that does color recordings vs black and white and their relevance in court. This guy is like the black hole where all rational conversation gets sucked in never to be seen again. He is amazing with his penchant for pointless, argumentative remarks.

Do you have an plan to actually address the points I raised, or are you going to continue nibbling at the legs of other arguments hoping to wear me out with things that are impertinent?

Let me know when you have some pertinent points and I will address them. Until you learn to stay on topic I will only play with you when bored.

Go back and look at all the deflections you made.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes mocking is a diversion. So is lying but I've told you that before. The only point your diversions are making is that you need diversions to participate.

No, the point is that I am enjoying myself, the participation part was me tearing your arguments apart and then laughing as you ran around redefining all the terms in order to declare yourself the winner.

I know you enjoy when I pay attention to you so i will stop. You show your sadness when you think this is about winning instead of mutually improving your knowledge. You are the epitome of a loser with a capital L.

The best thing about mocking you is I really don't need you to participate, all I need you to do is post.

 

[emilynghiem]

Self preservation isn't a good enough reason ?

Not if no one has any rights.

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

If all people around you respect your rights equally as theirs,
then nobody would kill you against your will, since that would violate your right of consent.

Not sure how or where this convo got to this point.

But I hold that we have "rights in the real world" where we agree to follow
and enforce the same principles for everyone so there is security and an
agreed process for resolving conflicts when those arise.

That is in the practical sense, in reality given what goes on with people in society.

In the theoretical level, these laws (of how human connect or react to one another) already exist, by human nature
and what works and doesn't work with people; and we have merely
to AGREE on those laws to invoke and practice them "in real life."
They do not need to be in writing, but it helps to get on the same page.

We are fortunate in America to have "free speech and press" to
communicate and share freely, with greater ability to agree and enforce
principles we believe in by informed consent, and to resolve conflicts. Countries without this same cultural tradition and freedom suffer obstruction and cannot always
resolve conflicts before violence erupts. We have an advantage in that sense.

So on a practical level, our ability to exercise our rights and freedoms under natural laws depends largely on the agreements we establish with those around us, using these very rights and freedom to express our opinions and beliefs, and areas of consent or dissent.

 

[emilynghiem]

For dblack's sake, I have got to respond to this, though I have no more to say to those whose minds are closed to the ramifications of human consciousness, either as a matter of sociopathy, pride or trolling, and that is not a personal attack as such, merely a statement of fact.

dblack, there is absolutely nothing spiritual about the facts of natural law. Clear the cobwebs of post-modern sloganeering from your mind; they're obscuring the reality of things for you. The imperatives of the Golden Rule just are . . . in nature!

Are you saying you don't understand that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong? More to the point, are you saying you would have another murder or oppress or rob you?

Start there, and stay there as long as it takes to sink in. Forget the rest for now.

What is esoteric or mystical about that?

What's hurting your head are the esoteric and mystical roadblocks of relativism's inscrutable mumbo jumbo: they are standing between you and the apprehension of the reality in which you live.

Why would any sensible person give a hoot about an inscrutable distinction that would make no difference to us in everyday reality? There exists for us no means by which to quantify it, let alone qualify it. Use your wits and bear down on reality as it is for us. There's already more than enough complexity in that, enough to boggle the mind for eternity. Why do you make things harder than they are?

Natural law = natural morality. Natural morality = natural law. Same thing. Natural, not supernatural.

Foxfyre is wrong to say that natural rights have nothing to do with morals; they have everything to do with morals as bottomed on the of reality of human (sentient) nature. What's the first principle of morality with regard to natural rights? Knowing where your rights end, for that is the point at which another's begin.

The moral distinction between a genuine right and an ability is the same moral distinction between natural rights and government tyranny stomping all over the former under the guise of civil protections. But to be fair to her, I'm pretty sure she was speaking in a different context as she just made the same point to another, effectively, regarding this very moral distinction.

Also, natural law is not religious in any supernatural or theistic sense at all as bottomed on nature.

However, it is not unreasonable to say that natural law is natural religion, but not in the sense that's clouding your thinking at all.

Besides, my occasional allusions to nature being ultimately grounded in an eternally subsistent and, therefore, transcendent reality beyond the same is not religious as such, but ontological. If those allusions are causing you to confuse the facts of nature in this regard, disregard them for now. They're not immediately relevant, just instructive.

But like I said, just concentrate on the following for now:

You know that murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you know that you would not have another murder or oppress or rob you.

Natural law = natural morality. Natural morality = natural law. Same thing. Natural, not supernatural.

Grasp that and you're on your way.

Forgive me but thats a bunch of hogwash. You feel murdering or oppressing or robbing another is wrong, because you wouldn't want it to happen to you. You can visualize the consequences and out of fear you protect yourself from the possibility regardless of if you have rights or not. If someone comes along and tells you there are some rights to help you out with you protecting yourself, you now feel validated and the more rights the merrier. If you feel you are in a position to do this to someone else because the reward is sufficient enough or the risk is non existent then people do and have done it to others. The same founding fathers that claimed we had these rights had no problem with slavery and forceful take over of Native American land. Explain that for me if you can.

1. As for murder etc. to be wrong because we don't want it,

NOBODY wants something done to them 'against their will'
So this goes against human nature which is to defend one's interest or free will/consent.
it doesn't have to be an issue of "morality"

Even a criminal who wants to rob someone doesn't want to be stopped against their will.
So it applies even to immoral acts.
it is a "natural law" that applies to all people.
We act according to our will and what we consent to, the choice that is we feel is either the most satisfying/pleasurable/peaceful or causes the least fearful/suffering/painful.

the pleasure/pain principle

We just work on different levels, depending if we count the effects on other people
equally as the effect on us, and to what degree, when we assess the benefits either way.

moral or immoral, for good or bad intent, the issue is what we consent to or want

2. as for explaining how can people believe in equality and endorse slavery

slaves were bought and mortgaged as property
owners could not always afford to free their slaves
any more than homeowners can give away their homes if they still owe money to the bank

that is the stage of society back then

especially for slaves not educated or able to sustain themselves in the social environment,
they had little choice but to live as slaves until the situation changed

so the slave owners who were against change, saw that the disparity in economic and social standing was not something they could address yet.

this would come later

so it is like how
* immigrants are not immediately equal but have to go through steps to acquire status
* teenagers who are not independent are not equal but require training and experience before becoming a responsible adult with legal and financial liability they can carry

people are equal in terms of dignity and respect

but in terms of practical legal and financial standing, and authority to make decisions,
people are in different stages and classes, and no we are not equal yet.

people with years or generations of experience owning businesses and property are not equal to people who have never known ownership and control.

we still have this disparity today.

we can believe people deserve to be treated equally, but it requires
education and experience to get there.

just like our laws require equal justice and protection but we don't have that yet.
we still have work to do to make the system truly work for all people at all levels.

 

[dilloduck]

Not if no one has any rights.

Rights dont do anything for you unless you live to point out the person who killed you....which is impossible.

If all people around you respect your rights equally as theirs,
then nobody would kill you against your will, since that would violate your right of consent.

Not sure how or where this convo got to this point.

But I hold that we have "rights in the real world" where we agree to follow
and enforce the same principles for everyone so there is security and an
agreed process for resolving conflicts when those arise.

That is in the practical sense, in reality given what goes on with people in society.

In the theoretical level, these laws (of how human connect or react to one another) already exist, by human nature
and what works and doesn't work with people; and we have merely
to AGREE on those laws to invoke and practice them "in real life."
They do not need to be in writing, but it helps to get on the same page.

We are fortunate in America to have "free speech and press" to
communicate and share freely, with greater ability to agree and enforce
principles we believe in by informed consent, and to resolve conflicts. Countries without this same cultural tradition and freedom suffer obstruction and cannot always
resolve conflicts before violence erupts. We have an advantage in that sense.

So on a practical level, our ability to exercise our rights and freedoms under natural laws depends largely on the agreements we establish with those around us, using these very rights and freedom to express our opinions and beliefs, and areas of consent or dissent.

Not sure how or where this convo got to this point.

The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough. It would still provide the security part. I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.

the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion

 

[KokomoJojo]

The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?

even a right granted from god would require being established my man. that circular

 

[emilynghiem]

The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?

Yes there are natural laws governing human behavior that exist and operate
REGARDLESS of what is established by people and our laws.
and
Yes whether or not we have rights, freedoms or security under these laws
IN REAL LIFE / PRACTICE
depends on how we agree to treat each other

it helps to have agreements established by word or in writing
that is why humans tend to organize by religious tribes or civil laws by state or nation

the universal principles that these written laws or unspoken agreements are based on
STILL exist and operate regardless,
but in reality, if we are going to make the "real" then it depends on
* written and spoken agreements
* agreements on interpretation or the spirit of the laws
* agreements on execution of laws or contracts

In America, our Constitution happens to make the core principles "statutory"
putting them "in writing" for US citizens and residents we deem under US jurisdiction.

Technically the same principles of natural laws inherently exist for all human beings,
by our nature and psychology of interacting in groups and collective society;
but if people don't establish agreement on standards, including a fair process to resolve conflicts of interest, then we risk violating each other's consent and free will
which inherently all individuals seek to protect for themselves by our nature.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough. It would still provide the security part. I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.

the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion

I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"

I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.

If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think (hope?) people have grown to the point they can work toward the goal of everyone living in peace and prosperity and that be enough. It would still provide the security part. I dont even have a problem with people still exercising religion as long as it had nothing to do with our rights.

the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion

I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"

I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.

If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.

Hi Emily. Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all. Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed. And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.

 

[RKMBrown]

the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion

I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"

I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.

If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.

Hi Emily. Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all. Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed. And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.

Bingo. Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats. Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate. Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...

Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline. The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"

I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.

If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.

Hi Emily. Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all. Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed. And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.

Bingo. Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats. Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate. Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...

Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline. The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.

Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind. It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less. I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hi Emily. Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all. Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed. And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.

Bingo. Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats. Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate. Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...

Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline. The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.

Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind. It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less. I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.

Your post here is the polar opposite of what I and RKMBrown said. Unalienable rights are not something that people are owed or deserve and they allow nobody 'special' anything. The Founders recognized that they exist and are what each person perceives them to be and are to be considered inviolate so long as nobody's rights are infringed.

The minute government presumes to dictate what unalienable rights are, the government has assumed power to take away whatever rights it wishes to take. The Founders were determined that the federal government never be given such power.

The Leftist mind seems incapable of grasping that concept, or at least that appears to be the case on this thread. Those on the right are having far less problem with the concept.

 

[oldfart]

the only rights possible for an "individual" to have originate out of their religion

I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"

I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.

If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.

Hi Emily. Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all. Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed. And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.

I dissent from you on two points regarding the Founding generation. First, I think the idea of privacy came later. All of the freedoms and rights they contemplated (especially of speech, assembly, and the right to vote) were publically exercised rights. You voted by voice at your polling place, before or after imbibing the whiskey thoughtfully provided. There were no such things as anonymous rights. The Founders would possibly have considered corporations and organizations as having free speech rights, but never without being identified as the speaker. Even the Federalist Papers under the name "Publius" were at the time well known as to the authorship of each paper.

Second, the founders had an intense distrust of corporations and large entities of any type. They regarded these as threats to freedom and democracy. They would undoubtedly have been among the first to break up large concentrations of power wherever they arose as smacking too much of aristocracy, monarchy, royal grants, and all the evils of European government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with KJ but would call it people's BELIEFS
so it covers secular and political BELIEFS and VALUES as a form of someone's "religion"

I believe A's objection to religion refers to "other people" imposing "their religion"
where A is not using "religion" to mean all people's rights to their own beliefs.

If we are going to be fair to all people, we should treat all beliefs equally as we do religion,
whether political, secular or personal values that "we believe in" and avoid imposing biases by, instead, resolving all such conflicts so nobody suffers unfair treatment or discrimination.

Hi Emily. Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all. Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed. And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.

I dissent from you on two points regarding the Founding generation. First, I think the idea of privacy came later. All of the freedoms and rights they contemplated (especially of speech, assembly, and the right to vote) were publically exercised rights. You voted by voice at your polling place, before or after imbibing the whiskey thoughtfully provided. There were no such things as anonymous rights. The Founders would possibly have considered corporations and organizations as having free speech rights, but never without being identified as the speaker. Even the Federalist Papers under the name "Publius" were at the time well known as to the authorship of each paper.

Second, the founders had an intense distrust of corporations and large entities of any type. They regarded these as threats to freedom and democracy. They would undoubtedly have been among the first to break up large concentrations of power wherever they arose as smacking too much of aristocracy, monarchy, royal grants, and all the evils of European government.

But here I think you are making the same mistake others are making by confusing or equating 'unalienable' rights with 'legal' rights. They are two separate things. "Legal" rights are instituted by and enforced by government. "Unalienable" rights simply exist, without or without government, and, because the purpose of our government is to allow a nation based on individual liberty, such 'unalienable' rights are simply to be recognized and left alone--to be inviolate by our government or anybody else.

Unalienable rights are who and what we are and what we do/think/believe that requires no participation or contribution from any other and does not infringe on anybody else's rights, unalienable or legal.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind. It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less. I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.

True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.