Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

I'm not playing repeater. We've already gone over this.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Mice are a part of Nature. Do rights come from mice? Didn't think so.

Your arguments are mere assertion. Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights. Ergo man has rights. Nothing about that is self evident. Nothing about that is even remotely true. Nature does not endow rights. Nothnig endows rights except society.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

Right. So the only way that they do is by the recognition from others. You aren't into self ownership, I get it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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

Mice are a part of Nature. Do rights come from mice? Didn't think so.

Your arguments are mere assertion. Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights. Ergo man has rights. Nothing about that is self evident. Nothing about that is even remotely true. Nature does not endow rights. Nothnig endows rights except society.

Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
Not at all. You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights. That's what gives you rights to begin with. Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I tried to get this one mouse to read Locke one time. Man was that a worthy endeavor.

 

[G.T.]

I cant believe any learned person would assert that what Locke meant by Natural Rights was "from man's brain, and man is a part of nature."

I just cannot believe this.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Mice are a part of Nature. Do rights come from mice? Didn't think so.

Your arguments are mere assertion. Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights. Ergo man has rights. Nothing about that is self evident. Nothing about that is even remotely true. Nature does not endow rights. Nothnig endows rights except society.

Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.

Dolphins are cognitive beings and do form social structures. So what? What difference does it make to a discussion on rights? None. Similar to your arguments about Man and Nature. It is irrelevant.

 

[G.T.]

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

Mice are a part of Nature. Do rights come from mice? Didn't think so.

Your arguments are mere assertion. Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights. Ergo man has rights. Nothing about that is self evident. Nothing about that is even remotely true. Nature does not endow rights. Nothnig endows rights except society.

Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.

The absurdity of him referring to mice was lost on you.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Right. So the only way that they do is by the recognition from others. You aren't into self ownership, I get it.

You dont get it. You aren't into self ownership either. You just think you are.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
Not at all. You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights. That's what gives you rights to begin with. Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.

Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
Who knew!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

Right. So the only way that they do is by the recognition from others. You aren't into self ownership, I get it.

You dont get it. You aren't into self ownership either. You just think you are.

Okie Dokie, fella. I'm outta here. You boys have fun!

 

[G.T.]

You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Mice are a part of Nature. Do rights come from mice? Didn't think so.

Your arguments are mere assertion. Man comes from Nature. Nature endows rights. Ergo man has rights. Nothing about that is self evident. Nothing about that is even remotely true. Nature does not endow rights. Nothnig endows rights except society.

Are mice cognitive beings? Do we see them forming complex social structures?
When was the last time you tried to reason with a mouse.

Dolphins are cognitive beings and do form social structures. So what? What difference does it make to a discussion on rights? None. Similar to your arguments about Man and Nature. It is irrelevant.

get the dolphin to read Locke then.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.

it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.

 

[G.T.]

You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.

it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.

you apparently aren't very good at following through on those decisions

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
Not at all. You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights. That's what gives you rights to begin with. Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.

Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
Who knew!

How could natural rights be established? ZING! You've lost this discussion right there.

Slavery posed a conundrum to the Founders on exactly that basis. Most of them recognized it as wrong but solving the problem presented insurmountable difficulties. And they were right.

 

[The Rabbi]

You've said you're outta here like five times now. Let nature take its course.

it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.

you apparently aren't very good at following through on those decisions

The British leave and never say good bye.
The Yiddish say good bye and never leave.

 

[G.T.]

it is. I make my own decisions, thanks. See how that works? Prolly not, prolly.

you apparently aren't very good at following through on those decisions

The British leave and never say good bye.
The Yiddish say good bye and never leave.

That's beautiful, that's poetry.

Are you a renaissance man and I've missed it all this time?

 

[GreenBean]

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.

You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .

Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !

Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are. People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .

That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways . It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.