Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government. Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs . Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government. Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs . Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

It's a foolish argument to claim that they exist "just cuz," and it's a foolish argument to argue they're from God or a creator when it's not within the realm of human knowledge how life was first created.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's actually really not. The entire premise is that other men do not give you your rights. it's that simple. You wanna invoke a religious figure? Go ahead. Nature? Fine by me. The point, though, is that you own yourself, that you are, as a cognitive creature, bestowed with certain rights. To life, etc...

This is basic shit, not really worthy of pages and pages of continued floundering over whether or not other men give you your rights. If that were the case, they wouldn't even be rights. They'd be privileges. Something you are given by superior men who ultimately control your life.

 

[Listening]

No

Clean debate zone.

Not clean opinion zone.

When you've got something to present, by all means.

Otherwise; depart.

 

[G.T.]

It's actually really not. The entire premise is that other men do not give you your rights.

(because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)

it's that simple. You wanna invoke a religious figure? Go ahead. Nature? Fine by me. The point, though, is that you own yourself, that you are, as a cognitive creature, bestowed with certain rights. To life, etc....

(because we decided to run with that great concept, nothing more than us deciding)

This is basic shit, not really worthy of pages and pages of continued floundering over whether or not other men give you your rights. If that were the case, they wouldn't even be rights. They'd be privileges. Something you are given by superior men who ultimately control your life.

Men invented the construct. It didn't magically appear, it had to be codified. Who codified it? A banana? A rabbit?

Men did.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And?

So what? You're trying to say that rights are an illusion concocted by man. Are you then also in agreement that government is nothing more than an illusion construct created by man too? Because it is. There is no government in anything but concept. All you really have is a bunch of rules man made, enforced by men and ultimately challenged and changed by men.

You're arguing a silly point.

 

[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

Please explain what we don't get

...

Does it really matter? People want to be owned. I'm still coming to terms with that I guess.

 

[G.T.]

And?

So what? You're trying to say that rights are an illusion concocted by man. Are you then also in agreement that government is nothing more than an illusion construct created by man too? Because it is. There is no government in anything but concept. All you really have is a bunch of rules man made, enforced by men and ultimately challenged and changed by men.

You're arguing a silly point.

Government is not an illusion, it's a committee. It actually exists, because we invented it and so it's there.

Once the use of Government was implemented, it rose above the level of "concept" and became "actuality."

It was also created by men though, yea obviously.

Natural Rights are only an illusion by saying "natural," because this cannot be proven at all with neither logic not physical evidence that they're pre existing to our sentience. Rights themselves are not an illusion, because we invented them and so they now exist. Just like Government exists, because we invented it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it doesn't exist on any level above saying that rights are an illusion of man. There is no "committee". You have a group of individuals. The entirety of their purpose beyond that is all a construct of man. The same as the rights. The rights exist because we're cognitive beings. We determine these things. Calling them natural rights only signifies that other men do not give you these rights. They are egalitarian. They are not something handed to you by superior men.

Your point is ridiculous, really.

 

[G.T.]

it doesn't exist on any level above saying that rights are an illusion of man. There is no "committee". You have a group of individuals.

Well gee, that's what the word committee means.

The entirety of their purpose beyond that is all a construct of man.

And?> So is taking a bath.

The same as the rights. The rights exist because we're cognitive beings. We determine these things. Calling them natural rights only signifies that other men do not give you these rights. They egalitarian. They are not something handed to you by superior men.

They exist because us cognitive beings declared that they exist, not because they're naturally "there," that's the whole point.

Your point is ridiculous, really.

Your contrarian meaninglessness is ridiculous. "there is no "committee" you have a group of individuals" ummm.....................rlly? gawly whats a committee

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government. Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs . Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

Your argument seems to be "might makes right." You do not have the right to defend yourself. You have the ability to defend yourself. Those are different. As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense. Murder is murder.
There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights. Ergo they don't exist.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?

You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.

com·mit·tee
kəˈmitē/Submit
noun
1.
a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.



I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but....


Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.

 

[G.T.]

So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?

You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.

com·mit·tee
kəˈmitē/Submit
noun
1.
a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.



I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but....


Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.

Hey dude,

you said the committee doesn't exist its just a group of individuals.

then you posted the definition of committee

and its definition is that its a group of individuals

youre not helping yourself out here




It's not circular logic at all.

Things that were created by men automatically thus being "illusions?" You're the one who invented that, I never said that. It's a pretty weird train of thought.

I didn't say rights don't exist, or theyre illusions.

I said men created them.

That doesn't make them an illusion, it makes them a creation.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government. Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs . Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

Your argument seems to be "might makes right." You do not have the right to defend yourself. You have the ability to defend yourself. Those are different. As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense. Murder is murder.
There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights. Ergo they don't exist.

And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.

Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people

1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..

2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..

It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.

 

[G.T.]

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

Your argument seems to be "might makes right." You do not have the right to defend yourself. You have the ability to defend yourself. Those are different. As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense. Murder is murder.
There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights. Ergo they don't exist.

And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.

Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people

1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..

2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..

It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.

You're not really grasping what he is throwing at you.

Men declared that rights were natural.

The same men who you're saying don't grant rights.


If anything, the circular logic train stops at your stop. No need for it to depart, it just ends up at the same stop - which is "men said so."

 

[The Rabbi]

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

Your argument seems to be "might makes right." You do not have the right to defend yourself. You have the ability to defend yourself. Those are different. As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense. Murder is murder.
There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights. Ergo they don't exist.

And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.

Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people

1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..

2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..

It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.

Mere assertion
Factual error
False dichotomy.
You're not doing well here.

In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
It is not basic. People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups. Something you didnt consider.

 

[BillyZane]

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.

Of course we have certain natural rights, but that doesn't mean a government has to recognize them and if the government where you are doesn't recognize them they effectively don't exist. That is what Jefferson was saying "the US government will ALWAYS recognize certain rights"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?

You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.

com·mit·tee
kəˈmitē/Submit
noun
1.
a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.



I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but....


Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.

Hey dude,

you said the committee doesn't exist its just a group of individuals.

then you posted the definition of committee

and its definition is that its a group of individuals

youre not helping yourself out here




It's not circular logic at all.

Things that were created by men automatically thus being "illusions?" You're the one who invented that, I never said that. It's a pretty weird train of thought.

I didn't say rights don't exist, or theyre illusions.

I said men created them.

That doesn't make them an illusion, it makes them a creation.

Comprehension can be difficult. A committee, if you can read, is a group of individuals for a specific function. THAT function, is a construct of man. This isn't complicated at all.

You've shifted the goal posts. You said that calling them natural rights is wrong because there is no physical evidence for them, or something close to that effect earlier. They are a construct of man. but is man not a part of nature?

You're argument is silly.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Your argument seems to be "might makes right." You do not have the right to defend yourself. You have the ability to defend yourself. Those are different. As mentioned, in Continental Europe there is no right of self defense. Murder is murder.
There is no effective difference between violations of natural rights and non-existence of natural rights. Ergo they don't exist.

And you're also falling directly back on a government. In Europe. Before any construct of geopolitical boundaries, there was man. Man has certain rights that he is endowed with. Man created this language to distinguish form many years of privilege that was handed to people from another man's authority. The point is that each individual has self ownership. That other men do not grant them their actions, thought, production, etc.. on decree. All other constructs socially from there are built from this concept. That was the point.

Lets try to simplify since this seems to be so incredibly complex for some people

1) you have men who have claimed authority to dictate too other men what they may do, when they may do it, etc..

2) You have each man, in ownership of himself that works socially with other humans to advance the standards by which they live. Technologically, socially, etc..

It's a pretty basic concept. You either own yourself, or someone else owns you.

Mere assertion
Factual error
False dichotomy.
You're not doing well here.

In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
It is not basic. People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups. Something you didnt consider.

Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.

Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.

 

[G.T.]

So your cognitive ability is not derived from nature? Is that what you're saying here?

You can continue to flounder around with this, but you're not making a cogent argument.

com·mit·tee
kəˈmitē/Submit
noun
1.
a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.



I realize this is encrediibly complicated stuff, but....


Any purpose beyond a group of individuals is a construct of man. You're circular logic is ablaze before you here.

Hey dude,

you said the committee doesn't exist its just a group of individuals.

then you posted the definition of committee

and its definition is that its a group of individuals

youre not helping yourself out here




It's not circular logic at all.

Things that were created by men automatically thus being "illusions?" You're the one who invented that, I never said that. It's a pretty weird train of thought.

I didn't say rights don't exist, or theyre illusions.

I said men created them.

That doesn't make them an illusion, it makes them a creation.

Comprehension can be difficult. A committee, if you can read, is a group of individuals for a specific function. THAT function, is a construct of man. This isn't complicated at all.

You've shifted the goal posts. You said that calling them natural rights is wrong because there is no physical evidence for them, or something close to that effect earlier. They are a construct of man. but is man not a part of nature?

You're argument is silly.

It's not my fault your comprehension didn't grasp what I said.

Never once did I imply or state that when men invent something, it doesn't really exist or it is an illusion JUST BECAUSE MEN INVENTED IT.

I said the idea that rights are "natural" was an illusion, and it is. It cannot be proven. It is simply a declaration.


so again, never once did I say that all things men created were thus illusions.

you invented that out of whole cloth.

just like you invented that committees and governments are illusions.

no. theyre inventions of men, yupp. illusions? no. men created them thus they exist.

when you call a right "natural" you are not saying that men created them, you (universal you) are saying that they were always there.

and yea, I know men are a part of nature. how weak is that? the term "natural rights" doesn't mean "men are a part of nature and the rights were invented by man thus theyre natural rights." you can go with that though. its still pretty funny.