Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

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

So then you believe man is not a part of nature. I get it. It's interesting, for sure.
You've missed the point entirely and continue to ramble on with nonsensical insertions/assertions.

Man declared self ownership FROM OTHER MEN. Using this, the rights are natural to them. They aren't given, or taken. They are because you are and rights are egalitarian. They aren't given to you by other men. This concept is not difficult to grasp. Regardless of the elementary argument of "natural rights aren't natural because you can not hold them in your hand, or see them with your eye."

 

[G.T.]

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

So then you believe man is not a part of nature. I get it. It's interesting, for sure.
You've missed the point entirely and continue to ramble on with nonsensical insertions/assertions.

Man declared self ownership FROM OTHER MEN. Using this, the rights are natural to them. They aren't given, or taken. They are because you are and rights are egalitarian. They aren't given to you by other men. This concept is not difficult to grasp. Regardless of the elementary argument of "natural rights aren't natural because you can not hold them in your hand, or see them with your eye."

No, man is definitely a part of nature.

But the term "natural rights" doesn't mean "came from man, man is nature, thus natural rights." That is pretty pathetic to even try to posit that.

"men declared self ownership from other men" is what you just said.

Good, you agree with Rabbi and I then. Men declared it. It didn't simply "just exist," or "come from God," as is the view of many who argue from "natural rights."

 

[G.T.]

Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there.

"we declare"

From my mouth, and unto you.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition?

I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth.

All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.

 

[G.T.]

Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition?

I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth.

All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.

Umm, no it's not hair splitting ...................................those who declare that rights were endowed on us by our creator or that they pre-existed our being, in nature, are wrong.

That's what the rabbi and I have been arguing from.

For you to, in the end, agree.

You're a serial contrarian, you took up against your own eventual conclusion. For what, fun?

Or are you saying nobody really believes theyre from God or that they pre-exist us in nature? Cuz if you're saying that, in which case I WOULD BE hair splitting, YOU'RE WRONG. There's tons of people saying JUST those things. Maybe you should think about that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there.

"we declare"

From my mouth, and unto you.

You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.

You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.

 

[G.T.]

Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there.

"we declare"

From my mouth, and unto you.

You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.

You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.

"Natural Rights" the traditional & political term does not mean "from the natural human brain."

Keep swinging that invisible stick.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition?

I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth.

All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.

Umm, no it's not hair splitting ...................................those who declare that rights were endowed on us by our creator or that they pre-existed our being, in nature, are wrong.

That's what the rabbi and I have been arguing from.

For you to, in the end, agree.

You're a serial contrarian, you took up against your own eventual conclusion. For what, fun?

Or are you saying nobody really believes theyre from God or that they pre-exist us in nature? Cuz if you're saying that, in which case I WOULD BE hair splitting, YOU'RE WRONG. There's tons of people saying JUST those things. Maybe you should think about that.

Then we do not agree. Because even for this game of hair splitter, if these are not natural rights then they are up to be challenged by other men. they aren't egalitarian. They are purely privileges granted by those who presume power.

I'm done playing repeater with you now. Go ahead and believe that man gives you the right, and I'll go ahead on self evidence and say that rights are natural and egalitarian.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Men cannot say "we declare that rights exist, they just ARE, because you ARE" without an argument of where they came from and how they got there.

"we declare"

From my mouth, and unto you.

You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.

You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.

"Natural Rights" the traditional & political term does not mean "from the natural human brain."

Keep swinging that invisible stick.

yes it does. I suggest reading Locke.

 

[G.T.]

Can you name another being on planet earth that has our level of cognition?

I agree that we declared our rights. i agree that we are a product of nature. I agree that using the term natural rights is done to distinguish between the authority of other men and rights that are granted to each individual because they are human and on planet earth.

All the same, it was a poor game of hair splitting on your part.

Umm, no it's not hair splitting ...................................those who declare that rights were endowed on us by our creator or that they pre-existed our being, in nature, are wrong.

That's what the rabbi and I have been arguing from.

For you to, in the end, agree.

You're a serial contrarian, you took up against your own eventual conclusion. For what, fun?

Or are you saying nobody really believes theyre from God or that they pre-exist us in nature? Cuz if you're saying that, in which case I WOULD BE hair splitting, YOU'RE WRONG. There's tons of people saying JUST those things. Maybe you should think about that.

Then we do not agree. Because even for this game of hair splitter, if these are not natural rights then they are up to be challenged by other men. they aren't egalitarian. They are purely privileges granted by those who presume power.

I'm done playing repeater with you now. Go ahead and believe that man gives you the right, and I'll go ahead on self evidence and say that rights are natural and egalitarian.

Ok, good for you. Your case has a million holes in it. For one - in declaring them self evident it would follow that their natural existence is explicable.

The only way you can explain it, is by reverting back to "men said so / men declared."

So of course, we have 1 point for SOURCE: MEN, and zero points for SOURCE: GOD / Creator

 

[G.T.]

You came from nature. You were born onto the planet as a human. Therefore, you have these rights. They aren't given to you by another man. You have self ownership. You belong to no one else. Declaring ones rights doesn't mean they do not exist naturally as we are natural, thinking beings. We declared independence from the King too. And we did so for the sole purpose of letting others know. We hold these truths to be self evident. It's self evident.

You could probably spend another two hours playing hair splitter on self evident too.

"Natural Rights" the traditional & political term does not mean "from the natural human brain."

Keep swinging that invisible stick.

yes it does. I suggest reading Locke.

No, Locke suggested God or Nature, not "man's brain."

Try again.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.

 

[G.T.]

Man is part of nature, dude. This isn't complex. You're splitting hairs again.

When Locke and the founders were describing natural rights, they were not referring to "from man's brain."

Intellectual honesty, and all that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

“Men living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.” (Two Treatises 2.19)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're welcome. I'm finished here.

 

[G.T.]

“Men living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.” (Two Treatises 2.19)

That's nice, its also meaningless.

I'm also done here, I require intellectual honesty and a non contrarian "for the hell of it" person to converse with.



You should read Locke on the Laws of nature, if you want to learn something. He was a very intelligent man. But for the short-sighted, by "laws of nature" he did not mean "laws of man's brain."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, so Locke is meaningless but be sure to read Locke because you'll see that he doesn't mean that men living with reason (cognition) isn't a state of nature of the brain. Reason comes from the thumb and big toe.

 

[G.T.]

Reason comes from man's brain.

Natural Law is an observance of nature and it's function. Not just "man's brain." Locke based his concept of natural rights theory on natural law, not "from mans brain."

Locke is not meaningless, your quote mining of his that you found is meaningless to the discussion of "by "natural" in the term "natural rights," did locke mean "from man's brain?"



next.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wrong on all counts.
Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't. Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist.
And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave. An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Wrong on all counts.
Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't. Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist.
And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave. An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.

Exactly.

Observing "what is" is not akin to a view of WANTING anything. It's mere observation of what is not what you wish for. It's intellectual dishonesty by definition to imply.