Listening to Paul Ryan

[Intense]

Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a defintion of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We don't have this here.

It is under attack, primarily by Statist Progressivism, but it is still retained.

 

[Intense]

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

An eloquent statement. It clearly states a belief of how things are and should be. It clearly established the essence of the social contract.
Of course rights issue from the people. Of course government issues from the people.
'Rights' and 'government' are words and thoughts created by people! They are totally subject to people.
To place the 'state' over humans is the most absurd of exercises. To think that people exist for the nation is similar to blasphemy.

In the Eyes of Classic Liberalism, Yes, a big Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ryan is only half correct.

Some rights are unalienable. And they come from our Creator. This is expressed in the Declaration of Independence when its listed as "amoung these" are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But like I said, Ryan is only half right. Some rights do in fact come from the State and not God. FOr example, the right to a fair and speedy trial comes from Government, NOT God.


This is one of Ryans fundamental flaws. He does not make the distinction between God or Creator given unalienable rights, and those that are given to us as citizens of this country through the power of the Constitution.

Do you have evidence that he doesn't understand the difference between natural and civil rights?

Just the statements that our rights come from God and Nature and not from Government. Im giving him half credit for a half correct answer.

Our rights come from nature and God, not government. - Paul Ryan

Ryan's Address: 'Our Rights Come from Nature and God, Not Government' - Paul Ryan - Fox Nation

Interestingly enough, he said the very same thing on Glenn Becks radio show just a couple of years ago, so this wasnt him misspeaking. This is fundamental to his belief system. And he is only half right.

You just choose to interpret his statement in a way that makes him look stupid, and you then offer that as proof that you are smart. Guess what, it didn't work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just the statements that our rights come from God and Nature and not from Government. Im giving him half credit for a half correct answer.

That's really all that Paul Ryan said yet the OP wants to make it as if he completely "rules out" our need for Government...

But it speaks to a larger issue on Ryan. Paul Ryan has said that he wants to completely destroy the Progressive Ideal. That means no Social Security and No medicare.

Lets REALLY look at Ryan. He proudly states that he lives on the same street he grew up on. His brother just a block away. He's living the American Dream...right?

Well, what does that REALLY say about the man?

Hes never branched out. Never left his comfort zone. never been really challenged by life.

He went straight from college into political life, never held down a private sector job ( which is what the Right wants to bash Obama for ).

He like Romney, has led a very sheltered life. He has learned about the American Experience from books, not experince. As such, his misconceptions are very understandable, though very very sad. In that, Ruan is no better than Obama. Worse even because his voting record shows he has little to no compassion for those who are in crisis.

That being said, Ryan is an articulate, intelligent man. I predict he will win the VP debate and may even someday be President. But I suspect he is running with a loser this time around.

If we ignore the niggling detail that he is the one that actually offered a plan to save both of those programs you have a point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...The problem is that most people confuse natural and legal obligations. Natural rights are those that are inherent in us as individuals. I think Hobbes was the first to effectively articulate the difference between a right and a obligation. Despite jillian's pointing to the fact that women were denied the right to vote as proof that rights come from the government, voting is not actually a natural right.

[and later]

Do you know what tautology means? Do you think that your use of tautology somehow proves you are above it? Natural rights are a philosophical position, not a legal one, demanding legal proof of the existence of philosophy is a bit like demanding that someone prove that reality is real.

Law, believe it or not, is not the definitive work of man.

People walk, birds fly, is either a right? Now since you mentioned natural rights, please name one. Detail please, no tautologies: it is because it is, doesn't count.

'Law is not the definitive work of man?' Please prove that. And while we call the absolutes of physics, laws, I think we all understand metaphor too.



"The probability, then, is that the next election will be close. It could also be fateful. Not because it is apt to enable the kind of electoral transformation the country urgently needs. But the Republican Party already has a majority on the Supreme Court, which increasingly attacks the rights of workers and consumers. If it captures the White House and both houses of Congress it will pass Draconian measures and deploy repressive tactics to stifle public dissent. All in the name of freedom. What to do?" William E. Connolly See The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine

Life.

If law is the definitive work of man we are defined by a system that is designed to take away our rights. I refuse to accept that, feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

As usual, your quote has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

 

[Old Rocks]

Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a defintion of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.

in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....

and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...

which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.

and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia) and a myriad of other issues

Interned Japanese Americans received compensation. Women were not denied any rights. People were free to move to states that recognized interracial marriage.
Pointing out examples like this really isn't much of an argument.

I believe that compensation was at the rate of about 10 cents on the dollar.

God given natural rights? So where was God at Auschwitz? At Sand Creek? Human Rights only exist where the people stand up and demand them. The instance they cease to do this, those rights are trod on by those with bigger guns and more economic power.

Here, in this nation, we have seen the expansion of human rights thwarted by an oligarchy that has been gaining power for the last 30 years. It is long past time to stand up to the power of the very wealthy in this nation, and expand our rights as citizens of this nation.

 

[Vidi]

it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.

in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....

and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...

which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.

and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia) and a myriad of other issues

Interned Japanese Americans received compensation. Women were not denied any rights. People were free to move to states that recognized interracial marriage.
Pointing out examples like this really isn't much of an argument.

I believe that compensation was at the rate of about 10 cents on the dollar.

God given natural rights? So where was God at Auschwitz? At Sand Creek? Human Rights only exist where the people stand up and demand them. The instance they cease to do this, those rights are trod on by those with bigger guns and more economic power.

Here, in this nation, we have seen the expansion of human rights thwarted by an oligarchy that has been gaining power for the last 30 years. It is long past time to stand up to the power of the very wealthy in this nation, and expand our rights as citizens of this nation.

While I certainly dont agree with Rabbi, I think youre confusing God ENFORCED for God GIVEN.

And we certainly dont need an expansion of rights, just protections of the ones currently enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[midcan5]

And my reponse stands. Let me put that another way:

The rights in our bill of rights, are based on the IDEALS that our founders wrote of. And that those rights are inate in every human and that no government can give them to you. Notice I said give, nor can they take them away.

You asked what those rights were. They are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the context of the discussion. If you are fishing for more, or some reason to say that government gives those to us, then you still miss the point of the way our constituional republic was set up. Which means that you miss the point of what Ryan was saying, as evidenced by your posts. Which is what I believe to be the case here.

History is full of governments taking away its citizen's rights, consider only the loss of rights after 911 (see link). Consider 'imminent domain,' the draft when I was young, lots more. To say a right is innate in a person is to say nothing. Where are they located? A right means the ability to do something, what are these somethings? If a right points nowhere, what is a right, meaningless words. But you defeated your own position, you qualified your argument with 'in the context,' so then outside this context these rights don't exist? Then I agree and the context is the establishment of our preamble and constitutional government. Anarchy remains anarchy.

But this often becomes a debate of language and what it means to the user. Words like 'give' and 'take' require context, read about the 13Th or 14Th century sometime, and see how much the ideas of rights have changed since the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Tell a person back then rights are innate. We have so absorbed the idea of rights, now we think them immutable. Explain rights to a gay man today who wants the right to marry their long time partner. Come back in twenty years when gay marriage is a right. And the pursuit of happiness has too many meanings to too many to even get in to.

The Political Scene: Killing Habeas Corpus : The New Yorker

Life.

If law is the definitive work of man we are defined by a system that is designed to take away our rights. I refuse to accept that, feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

As usual, your quote has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

If I am dead where are my rights. We can have some real fun with this, you know the joke about out of 100 thousand swimmers, 'you were the fastest?' Or the fact a majority of conceptions end naturally. Or masturbation as the destruction of life. Or letting a month go by and the egg is lost. And no one asked me if I wanted to accept the right to life. I may have been happy with the right not to life. Jeez, is that a possible query.

You can refuse to accept the earth is round and guess what, your 'if then' logic makes no sense, law gives too, you've heard of civil rights. Life has boundaries as soon as we come in contact with another living thing be they person, or that lion that would like you for dinner. Explain rights to the lion and if she could talk she'd tell you she has a right to life too.

My quotes are often additional material for thought and may or may not be completely on topic. Do I have to tell you this over and over and over again? Ignore them at your intellectual peril.


"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." Ronald Reagan

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept of unalienable rights is pure and honest and definite, but sometimes is explained imperfectly because all humans are imperfect beings. The Renaissance and Reformer visionaries who first wrote of the concept were not perfect beings. The Founding Fathers who incorporated those concepts into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were also imperfect beings. And all the sometimes brilliant, sometimes opportunistic people who have brought the Constitution into modern day times didn't include a single saint or perfect being.

And because we are imperfect beings, it often takes awhile to get everybody on board on what is right, what is wrong, how to fix problems, how to correct mistakes, how to be better, how to do things better. And as an imperfect people, we Americans have corrected many mistakes over time, have learned to do many things better, have corrected past injustices, have fixed problems, and have created new ones.

And none of that changes the fact that recognition of unalienable rights allows all men and women the freedom to think, say, believe, dream, or do whatever they wish that requires no contribution or participation by another person. Only those who have their unalienable rights secured are truly free. And without exception, in all of history the people who have been most free have been the most productive, most prosperous, most innovative, most creative, and most benevolent people on Earth.

It is the core concept of American exceptionalism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And my reponse stands. Let me put that another way:

The rights in our bill of rights, are based on the IDEALS that our founders wrote of. And that those rights are inate in every human and that no government can give them to you. Notice I said give, nor can they take them away.

You asked what those rights were. They are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the context of the discussion. If you are fishing for more, or some reason to say that government gives those to us, then you still miss the point of the way our constituional republic was set up. Which means that you miss the point of what Ryan was saying, as evidenced by your posts. Which is what I believe to be the case here.

History is full of governments taking away its citizen's rights, consider only the loss of rights after 911 (see link). Consider 'imminent domain,' the draft when I was young, lots more. To say a right is innate in a person is to say nothing. Where are they located? A right means the ability to do something, what are these somethings? If a right points nowhere, what is a right, meaningless words. But you defeated your own position, you qualified your argument with 'in the context,' so then outside this context these rights don't exist? Then I agree and the context is the establishment of our preamble and constitutional government. Anarchy remains anarchy.

But this often becomes a debate of language and what it means to the user. Words like 'give' and 'take' require context, read about the 13Th or 14Th century sometime, and see how much the ideas of rights have changed since the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Tell a person back then rights are innate. We have so absorbed the idea of rights, now we think them immutable. Explain rights to a gay man today who wants the right to marry their long time partner. Come back in twenty years when gay marriage is a right. And the pursuit of happiness has too many meanings to too many to even get in to.

The Political Scene: Killing Habeas Corpus : The New Yorker

Life.

If law is the definitive work of man we are defined by a system that is designed to take away our rights. I refuse to accept that, feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

As usual, your quote has nothing to do with the discussion we are having.

If I am dead where are my rights. We can have some real fun with this, you know the joke about out of 100 thousand swimmers, 'you were the fastest?' Or the fact a majority of conceptions end naturally. Or masturbation as the destruction of life. Or letting a month go by and the egg is lost. And no one asked me if I wanted to accept the right to life. I may have been happy with the right not to life. Jeez, is that a possible query.

You can refuse to accept the earth is round and guess what, your 'if then' logic makes no sense, law gives too, you've heard of civil rights. Life has boundaries as soon as we come in contact with another living thing be they person, or that lion that would like you for dinner. Explain rights to the lion and if she could talk she'd tell you she has a right to life too.

My quotes are often additional material for thought and may or may not be completely on topic. Do I have to tell you this over and over and over again? Ignore them at your intellectual peril.


"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." Ronald Reagan

If, as you claim, government is the source of rights, there is no way a government can take away anyone's rights because they never had them in the first place. In other words, every single time you point out how government takes away rights you are arguing for the theory of natural rights. That theory is why we get outraged when people like Saddam Hussein uses poison gas on his own subjects. If government was actually the source of rights we would not be able to argue that him doing that violates there rights because the government is the one that killed them.

You really need to stop arguing a position you clearly do not believe.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.

in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....

and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...

which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.

and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia) and a myriad of other issues

Interned Japanese Americans received compensation. Women were not denied any rights. People were free to move to states that recognized interracial marriage.
Pointing out examples like this really isn't much of an argument.

I believe that compensation was at the rate of about 10 cents on the dollar.

God given natural rights? So where was God at Auschwitz? At Sand Creek? Human Rights only exist where the people stand up and demand them. The instance they cease to do this, those rights are trod on by those with bigger guns and more economic power.

Here, in this nation, we have seen the expansion of human rights thwarted by an oligarchy that has been gaining power for the last 30 years. It is long past time to stand up to the power of the very wealthy in this nation, and expand our rights as citizens of this nation.

right....the oligarchy with world socialism as their goal....

the only people standing up today for our individual rights as citizens are the Tea Party patriots....

 

[midcan5]

Questions hopefully lead to discussion and discussion to knowledge. I think it fair to say except for some broad concepts, no one has argued for a specific right from nature nor Gawd. No fault of either for all of life is what we make it. I find it paradoxical that some will look to nature for rights and then use religion or government as justification. Nature tells us little except if you jump make sure it is not from the too high. Religions tell us lots, somethings good somethings ridiculous. Life is what eventually teaches us, but life liberty and the pursuit of happiness while a wonderful sentiment requires more than just words. History is on the side of reflection not ideological abstractions of the sort politicians give as justifications.

The concept of unalienable rights is pure and honest and definite, but sometimes is explained imperfectly because all humans are imperfect beings. The Renaissance and Reformer visionaries who first wrote of the concept were not perfect beings. The Founding Fathers who incorporated those concepts into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were also imperfect beings. And all the sometimes brilliant, sometimes opportunistic people who have brought the Constitution into modern day times didn't include a single saint or perfect being....

Since you used concept rather than right I would mostly agree, but my question was about natural rights and rights from gawd. Once you bring people into the equation natural and gawd given go out the door. That is my point. As for unalienable rights, if history says anything it says nothing is unalienable. Our own history shows that too often. 911 proved how easily people can relinquish their rights. Thoughtful reply.

If, as you claim, government is the source of rights, there is no way a government can take away anyone's rights because they never had them in the first place. In other words, every single time you point out how government takes away rights you are arguing for the theory of natural rights. That theory is why we get outraged when people like Saddam Hussein uses poison gas on his own subjects. If government was actually the source of rights we would not be able to argue that him doing that violates there rights because the government is the one that killed them.

You really need to stop arguing a position you clearly do not believe.

Interesting reply. A right is not a 'thing' that comes from government, but give me a right that exists outside the realm of law and then tell me how we settle disputes? If I have a right to own slaves cannot government change its mind and remove that right? Is owning slaves a natural right? Is discrimination based on race a natural right? If we remove government can I keep my slaves or my discriminatory golf course? Do slaves have rights or green people? Legislation is about more than bridges to nowhere, it is fundamentally what we want from our government. It is this piece you miss in your utopian vision of a neverland in which rights exists independent of reality. Government should be thought of as all of us working to make sense and to live as peacefully and sensibly as possible. Reagan got this one wrong.

 

[gkjpalmer]

I'd prefer to keep this simple and I believe I have it correct.

God here represents perfection.
Being human, we are not, yet on earth we are confronted with having to co-exhist.

Without rights of any kind in a harsh environment, combined with ourselves being our biggest threat to one another, life would simply be in constant danger of termination, (not a great way to live).

To avoid this alternative we have wrestled with the notion of individual rights, their extents and their limits for a very long time.

Being imperfect we will always struggle with this notion and never get it perfect.

But the ellusive perfectly balanced rights intended us by A Perfect God is worth striving toward. Our Founders set us on that course by acknowleging our human imperfection but pointed toward a goal of perfection.

To the extent that they defined God given rights to include life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, well that was just in case any one asked what they meant by God given rights and the which direction they were thinking.

Then of course they went on to discuss the matter of slavery.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If, as you claim, government is the source of rights, there is no way a government can take away anyone's rights because they never had them in the first place. In other words, every single time you point out how government takes away rights you are arguing for the theory of natural rights. That theory is why we get outraged when people like Saddam Hussein uses poison gas on his own subjects. If government was actually the source of rights we would not be able to argue that him doing that violates there rights because the government is the one that killed them.

You really need to stop arguing a position you clearly do not believe.

Interesting reply. A right is not a 'thing' that comes from government, but give me a right that exists outside the realm of law and then tell me how we settle disputes? If I have a right to own slaves cannot government change its mind and remove that right? Is owning slaves a natural right? Is discrimination based on race a natural right? If we remove government can I keep my slaves or my discriminatory golf course? Do slaves have rights or green people? Legislation is about more than bridges to nowhere, it is fundamentally what we want from our government. It is this piece you miss in your utopian vision of a neverland in which rights exists independent of reality. Government should be thought of as all of us working to make sense and to live as peacefully and sensibly as possible. Reagan got this one wrong.

Good, you are trying to think.

Here is how it works. Is slavery wrong? If the answer to that is yes then you cannot argue that liberty is something the government gives us because some governments have condoned slavery. If the answer to that is no then you cannot use slavery as an example in any argument about rights.

Your turn.

 

[midcan5]

Good, you are trying to think.

Here is how it works. Is slavery wrong? If the answer to that is yes then you cannot argue that liberty is something the government gives us because some governments have condoned slavery. If the answer to that is no then you cannot use slavery as an example in any argument about rights.

Your turn.

Original question

Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

QW, excellent, a thought, your 'either or' is not my position (or part of my question above) but I'll play.

Is slavery wrong? Depends on who you ask, when, and where. Liberty has nothing* to do with slavery. Liberty is a concept not a right, it is undefinable. Can government grant the right to liberty?** Only if we know what liberty entails. Only laws can do that and laws enforce rights. I don't think I said liberty came from government, if I did, or implied it did, mea culpa. Slavery was a right at one time in our history. Is slavery a right, John C. Calhoun thought so, the Bible says its OK too. I think slavery is wrong, do you think it wrong? Slave holders don't need government to keep or enslave they only require power. Today the sex industry worldwide still operates outside of government. Is sex slavery wrong? But I finally understand your point, you think liberty precedes government, that's fine.

"But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good -- a positive good." John Calhoun Slavery a Positive Good by John C. Calhoun

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT


* Nothing is a bit strong but hopefully I explained why I used it.

** I think that is both the genius and the curse of our Constitution, we are left to work it out. Consider all the changes since its acceptance.

 

[CandySlice]

Nothing Paul Ryan says about God and nature bothers me. They all say that, sometimes correctly, sometimes no, but I like him because he's smart and understands the economy. It's been a long time since we've had any body within shouting distance of Capitol Hill that gets that and it gives me hope. (the real kind, not the catch phrase get me elected kind) Regardless of what you think of Ryans ideas you must rememeber even the best of them will be watered down to the point of bare recognition but the good news is, at least a few might get through.

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept of unalienable rights is pure and honest and definite, but sometimes is explained imperfectly because all humans are imperfect beings. The Renaissance and Reformer visionaries who first wrote of the concept were not perfect beings. The Founding Fathers who incorporated those concepts into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were also imperfect beings. And all the sometimes brilliant, sometimes opportunistic people who have brought the Constitution into modern day times didn't include a single saint or perfect being....

Since you used concept rather than right I would mostly agree, but my question was about natural rights and rights from gawd. Once you bring people into the equation natural and gawd given go out the door. That is my point. As for unalienable rights, if history says anything it says nothing is unalienable. Our own history shows that too often. 911 proved how easily people can relinquish their rights. Thoughtful reply.

What is a 'right' other than a concept that we collectively regard as inviolate? What is freedom other than ability to enjoy rights that are inviolate? To see a right as "God given" requires a belief in God. All those who defined human freedom as being a respect and convictiono of 'natural rights' did not necessarily believe in God, but they nevertheless regarded unalienable rights in the same way as did those who declared such rights are God given.

So what is an 'unalienable right' that the Constitution intended to recognize and protect as inviolate? Again, it is that which requires no participation or contribution by any other. Our ability to breathe, to live, to enjoy our own property and the abilities we were born with, to speak, to believe, to think, to appreciate, to create, to worship, to be who we are without interference by or retaliation from others is what freedom is.

Paul Ryan, I believe understands this intellectually, emotionally, and rationally. Barack Obama, I believe does not. I believe Paul Ryan sees government as the entity to secure our unalienable rights and provide a stable structure that allows us to exercise them. I believe Barack Obama sees government as the entity that assigns us the rights the government thinks we should have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good, you are trying to think.

Here is how it works. Is slavery wrong? If the answer to that is yes then you cannot argue that liberty is something the government gives us because some governments have condoned slavery. If the answer to that is no then you cannot use slavery as an example in any argument about rights.

Your turn.

Original question

Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

QW, excellent, a thought, your 'either or' is not my position (or part of my question above) but I'll play.

Is slavery wrong? Depends on who you ask, when, and where. Liberty has nothing* to do with slavery. Liberty is a concept not a right, it is undefinable. Can government grant the right to liberty?** Only if we know what liberty entails. Only laws can do that and laws enforce rights. I don't think I said liberty came from government, if I did, or implied it did, mea culpa. Slavery was a right at one time in our history. Is slavery a right, John C. Calhoun thought so, the Bible says its OK too. I think slavery is wrong, do you think it wrong? Slave holders don't need government to keep or enslave they only require power. Today the sex industry worldwide still operates outside of government. Is sex slavery wrong? But I finally understand your point, you think liberty precedes government, that's fine.

"But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good -- a positive good." John Calhoun Slavery a Positive Good by John C. Calhoun

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT


* Nothing is a bit strong but hopefully I explained why I used it.

** I think that is both the genius and the curse of our Constitution, we are left to work it out. Consider all the changes since its acceptance.

I already did a serious defense of natural rights in two other threads. Just because you started a third thread on the same subject without paying attention to other threads does not require me to defend it again. Besides, this is the CDZ, where you are the one that is actually required to defend your premise. That does not mean you get to issue a challenge in the OP and pretend that the rules of the forum do not apply to you.

As far as I am concerned you have a choice, defend your premise that natural rights do not exist, or admit you lost the debate. Can you offer any evidence that natural rights do not exist other than your pretentious use of other people's quotes?

 

[midcan5]

I think we have established, rights are often mere lines....

"So a lot depends on the availability of a remedy: when the courts refuse to provide one, rights can be reduced to mere lines on paper."

"In the momentous 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the “very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury” and warned that a government cannot be called a “government of laws, and not of men . . . . if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.""

Boston Review — Pamela S. Karlan: What’s a Right Without a Remedy?

Boston Review — Pamela S. Karlan: Empty Benches


"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." Henry M. Robert

 

[Foxfyre]

I think we have established, rights are often mere lines....

"So a lot depends on the availability of a remedy: when the courts refuse to provide one, rights can be reduced to mere lines on paper."

"In the momentous 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the “very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury” and warned that a government cannot be called a “government of laws, and not of men . . . . if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.""

Boston Review — Pamela S. Karlan: What’s a Right Without a Remedy?

Boston Review — Pamela S. Karlan: Empty Benches


"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." Henry M. Robert

I don't think we have established that at all.

It all comes down to our definition of what a right is. The Paul Ryans of the world see a right as I see it. The leftist sees it as something assigned or allowed by some authority.

What makes rights as the Founders and as Paul Ryan identifies rights different from all others is that they see them as God given and not to be violated by any Earthly authority. That does not suppose that the evil and/or corrupt and/or lovers of government cannot violate our rights, but we clearly see violation of unalienable rights as a violation of those rights. The Founders and people like Paul Ryan see the duty of government is to secure those rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves and live their lives as they choose, for better or worse. There is no freedom any other way.

The statists/political class/lovers of government too often do not recognize any rights other than what the government assigns or allows and resist a concept of self governance. They do not easily tolerate true freedom but consider freedom to be the society they envision as ideal and they look to government to create such a society.

There really are fundamental differences between the Founders view and the statist/political class/Democrat/leftist/progressive/liberal point of view on this subject.