What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Elutherian]

Well, I'd say you just about summed up my own views on this particular subject Kevin. So my answer is Ditto.

 

[Mister T]

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you.

Nope. It just acknowledges that the mob can enforce its will upon a person. No authority is granted or assumed by the realization.

Try again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you.

Nope. It just acknowledges that the mob can enforce its will upon a person. No authority is granted or assumed by the realization.

Try again.

The fact that somebody can do something doesn't prove anything. Whether you believe in natural rights or not a crime could be committed against you. However, to deny that we have natural rights, such as your right to live, means that others have the right to take your life and it isn't wrong, immoral, unjust, or any other negative connotation.

 

[Elutherian]

The way you've got to see rights is like physics. Every action has an equal reaction. Well, If I try to take something that ain't mine... I'm gonna get a beating. If I try to take a man's life, I'm gonna get killed.

As an individual, I can defend what's mine. My body's mine, my choices are mine, and my property is mine. I'll defend it against any aggression... and the same goes for everyone else.

Another way to look at it is deductively:
Either I own the property I worked for, traded, or found (that was unclaimed of course) or somebody else does. Who has the better claim to it? Me, who got the property first, or the person who takes it from me.

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Lord Capatain]

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you.

Nope. It just acknowledges that the mob can enforce its will upon a person. No authority is granted or assumed by the realization.

Try again.

The fact that somebody can do something doesn't prove anything.

It proves they can do it

However, to deny that we have natural rights, such as your right to live, means that others have the right to take your life and it isn't wrong, immoral, unjust, or any other negative connotation.

Denying they have rights gives them a right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope. It just acknowledges that the mob can enforce its will upon a person. No authority is granted or assumed by the realization.

Try again.

The fact that somebody can do something doesn't prove anything.

It proves they can do it

However, to deny that we have natural rights, such as your right to live, means that others have the right to take your life and it isn't wrong, immoral, unjust, or any other negative connotation.

Denying they have rights gives them a right?

If you don't believe in natural rights then you must believe that we get our rights from some majority or a government representing the majority. This would mean that the majority could choose to enslave the minority, or kill the minority. After all, they have no natural right to life so if the majority decides they have no right to life in their eyes they can kill them and it would neither be wrong or illegal. The fact that somebody can kill somebody else doesn't prove that natural rights don't exist.

 

[Lord Capatain]

They could choose to do it regardless of what you believe. In fact, it's happened many times in history.

Denying natural rights doesn't mean it would be legal- that's what laws and positive rights are created for.

Are you dense or dishonest or both?

 

[Intense]

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you. Where does this authority come from? It has to come from force. In a natural state, without coercion or force, we would not recognize anybody else's authority over us.

Definitely not over our thoughts. Words and Actions would be pretty loose too, unless threatened.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They could choose to do it regardless of what you believe. In fact, it's happened many times in history.

Denying natural rights doesn't mean it would be legal- that's what laws and positive rights are created for.

Are you dense or dishonest or both?

The point being that those positive rights can be revoked as easily as they can be given.

 

[Lord Capatain]

They could choose to do it regardless of what you believe. In fact, it's happened many times in history.

Denying natural rights doesn't mean it would be legal- that's what laws and positive rights are created for.

Are you dense or dishonest or both?

The point being that those positive rights can be revoked as easily as they can be given.

Which does nothing to demonstrate the existence of natural rights.

So, the point of your lamentations is?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is no such thing as "natural rights."

Any imagined "natural rights" have absolutely no weight except the weight given to them by men who propose them and enforce them.

The only God-given right is the right to serve God.

And the men who enforce them are the men who are endowed with them...

Isn't it wonderful how 130 pages down range, idiots feel perfectly fine to just drop in and vomit already thoroughly discredited nonsense.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Whether or not there is such a thing as a natural right or a God-given right is irrelevant.

WHoooooooaaaaa Gotta disagree with ya here Liability...

It is everything... Our Rights are as real as we are... and those rights are measured on the authority of the endowment which provides them... Absent that authority... those rights do not exist... amounting to nothing more than an opinion.

By setting aside that authority, you concede entirely to the Humanist who grant you the right to your opinion, but reject any authority being represented in such.

 

[Intense]

So not only is intense fit to decide who has what rights, but they can come and go depending on one's efforts to attain them?

Back that up with supporting evidence. .

Rights are defined by the entity that grants and enforces them - and different entities bestows different rights as they choose.

My bank bestows my right to access my money
My employer bestows my right to the benefits they offer
God bestows my right to serve him
U.S. Government bestows rights to income tax deductions

There are no universal rights that all human beings on the planet share - in spite of our founing fathers' attempt to define such a set - they could only actually GRANT those rights within the jurisdiction they helped create.

God can offer rights under a covenent with him - but if folks reject that covenant, they reject the rights offered too.

In Every case but Yours, Thought is a Natural Right!
Keep trying though!!!! It will come!!!!!

Your words

And???? He denied the Natural Right to Thought, and having the natural right to communicate, denied it within himself, while using both. My post was pointing out that someday he might realize that his failure was in recognition, and in false limitation.

 

[Intense]

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you.

Nope. It just acknowledges that the mob can enforce its will upon a person. No authority is granted or assumed by the realization.

Try again.

Crime and Sin do not cancel Rights. Life goes on in and out of society, and sometimes even in spite of It. I may have Rights that are still unrecognized. The main criteria for a Right is Justification.

 

[Lord Capatain]

You asserted that a right exists, but not in his case. You decided to declare who has what rights.

Are you recanting that post?

 

[Lord Capatain]

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you.

Nope. It just acknowledges that the mob can enforce its will upon a person. No authority is granted or assumed by the realization.

Try again.

Crime and Sin do not cancel Rights. Life goes on in and out of society, and sometimes even in spite of It. I may have Rights that are still unrecognized. The main criteria for a Right is Justification.

you've demonstrated the existence of nothing.

try again

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It seems to me that your conception of rights is not well-thought out. How is that you know we have 'natural' rights? Where is the evidence that they exist? If corporate action by human communities does not back 'rights' up, what does back them up?

To deny natural rights means to assume that somebody else, be it one person or a group of people, has some authority over you.

Nope. It just acknowledges that the mob can enforce its will upon a person. No authority is granted or assumed by the realization.

Try again.

That a mob can enforce its will does not strip the offended majority of their right.

If I come into your home and subject you to my will, through the application of a greater force than that against which you're able to defend... Do I rob you of your right to be secure in your home?

I mean, IF that is true, then once I take apply such power, I've taken your right by force and you no longer have such a right. Right?

Now help a brother out here... Do you beleive that if I came into your home and overpowered you, that you lose the right to your house?

How about if I take your life... Do I then just get all of your crap? Can I just file a notice with the Post office to change my address?

If the neighbor comes over and asks where ya are... with my having TAKEN YOUR RIGHT... do you expect that I could just explain: "well I come on in last night and done killed his ass... so di's here house, mine now... HEY... You got a lon mowa? I needs to tighten this shit up..."?

And it's here kids that the humanist 'reality' argument crumbles... like all other leftist notions... it sounds GREAT right up the the point where it's being applied.

 

[Lord Capatain]

You keep appealing to something you assert exists but you've never demonstrated it.

Why the emotional appeals? Do you have no logical argument?

 

[Intense]

They could choose to do it regardless of what you believe. In fact, it's happened many times in history.

Denying natural rights doesn't mean it would be legal- that's what laws and positive rights are created for.

Are you dense or dishonest or both?

The point being that those positive rights can be revoked as easily as they can be given.

Which does nothing to demonstrate the existence of natural rights.

So, the point of your lamentations is?

There are Rights No Government has the Right to Take away Unjustly, in Civilized Society. There are choices that Governments make that violate the Natural Order and have Consequence. Our Nature will always flow towards Liberty, There are Always Those that will fight and Resist Injustice, while the Lame make excuses for It.

 

[Lord Capatain]

You keep making assertions. Where is your demonstration? Simply saying something (God, Natural rights, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa, The Reptilian NWO Conspiracy) exists doesn't make it so.