Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dblack]

Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.

An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.

An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

But Jefferson was full of shit. It wasn't him, of course. He was a product of his times. But it is instructive that no society ever produced the notion of "rights" as understood by the Founders until the Enlightenment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

You really need to get over your reflexive hatred of religion whenever anyone starts a discussion.

Natural rights come from you, not other humans, or government. The proof of that is that you are alive despite the fact that no one on the planet gave you permission to breathe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Just because you allow other people to control your rights does not mean I do.

 

[dblack]

Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.

An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

But Jefferson was full of shit.

How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody seems to get this. Jefferson was describing a particular kind of rights, namely innate freedoms that are simply byproducts of our capacity for volition. He was doing this deliberately to distinguish them from privileges that must be granted, that require the service of others. In his view, we don't create government to grant us any rights we don't already have; we create it to protect those we possess naturally as thinking creatures.

An accurate understanding of this concept would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion that leads to incoherent conceptions like a "right" to health care, or other services.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

But Jefferson was full of shit.

How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?



Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

As said, rights are a construct of society. Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire. The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights. They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Hmmm, but isn't governments function supposed to be to protect ones individual rights as based upon years of understanding what those rights are ? Otherwise if the rights are challenged by another, and this also being based upon years of understanding what those protections & rights are, then there should be no question of these things, and to how it all works. Now what seems to be happening is another form of government is being created now, and therefore it's interpretations are changing as to how ones rights are to be protected, and to what rights it feels a person is entitled to, and what they are not entitled to any longer. Now if we allow this to be the new way of America, and the new American government who has taken this new path, then confusion will reign supreme for those who are living in the past.

 

[dblack]

But Jefferson was full of shit.

How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?



Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

As said, rights are a construct of society. Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire. The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights. They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.

You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.

It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

How so? How would you presume to "correct" him?



Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk

As said, rights are a construct of society. Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire. The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights. They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.

You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.

It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.

Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
What are the source for these rights?
What do they consist of?
How do we know what they are?
No one can give a credible account of these questions. Thus they do not exist.

 

[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?

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.

Luddly. I promise not to tell anyone that you are a conservative. We will keep this a secret. Only between us....

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As said, rights are a construct of society. Jefferson could not say that without giving the entire rebellion a philosophical flat tire. The Founders claimed George III trod on some heretofore unknown set of natural rights. They had to because George had not violated any rights that Englishmen commonly enjoyed.

You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.

It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.

Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
What are the source for these rights?
What do they consist of?
How do we know what they are?
No one can give a credible account of these questions. Thus they do not exist.

Why is it unprovable? Can you show me one example of a government ever giving anyone life?

 

[BobPlumb]

One natural right people have is the right to self defense. This right exist with or without government.

 

[Politico]

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 ?

No.

 

[Crystalclear]

One natural right people have is the right to self defense. This right exist with or without government.

Totally agree with this one.

 

[beagle9]

One natural right people have is the right to self defense. This right exist with or without government.

Yep, and that right lay within the hands of the defender always, and this regardless of the consequences afterwards. It is called "bravery" in order to stand up and to uphold what one believes in. The other is called courage. These things are built in.

 

[Intense]

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 Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704

Introduction
CHAP. I.
CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
CHAP. V. Of Property.
CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

 

[Mojo2]

"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.

And your posts, characteristically, do nothing to help preserve those rights.

The unbrideled intentional attempt at deception (or unintentional ignorance) of this post of yours is breathtaking.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're missing the point. The rights we choose to protect with government are, more or less arbitrarily chosen by society, sure. But his point was that the rights we're most concerned with protecting aren't granted to us, they're ours by default. We employ government to protect them, not to "give" them to us.

It's an important distinction, not because it designates some rights as sacrosanct or some similar nonsense. But because it puts government in the proper perspective as a tool to protect our freedom, rather than the source of that freedom.

Yeah but that is unproved and unprovable proposition.
What are the source for these rights?
What do they consist of?
How do we know what they are?
No one can give a credible account of these questions. Thus they do not exist.

Why is it unprovable? Can you show me one example of a government ever giving anyone life?

Huh?
What is unprovable is that such rights exist at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

One natural right people have is the right to self defense. This right exist with or without government.

Totally agree with this one.

Nonsense. In Europe there is no such thing. They hold by the ancient Christian precept that killing is murder. Thus there is no right of self defense as we understand it.
Further, what are the parameters of that right? In America if you know someone is plotting to hurt or kill you you cannot go and hunt that person down. That is considered murder. But in biblical law that is appropriate.

 

[Connery]

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.

Generally, the less government intervention the more inherent rights people have. While there are certain issues that only government can legislate for, such legislation later becomes all inclusive and then reduces the amount of rights for the general populace.

Government or any universal intervention only inhibits the ability of a society to evolve and develop their own laws/rights.

No organization, governing body or system of rules can better insure the "rights" of a person than the person themselves. Nothing can keep the human spirit down and crush the desire to flourish and be exercise those rights.