What "rights" does nature give us?

[ScreamingEagle]

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

yet nature allows the right to live and exist in the first place....and the liberty in order to live by cunning, speed, strength and agility....in the pursuit of happiness which may be to beat off the attacker or obtaining the next meal...

 

[TNHarley]

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

Good post. Now take it, and re-evaluate your ideology. Hence, the thread Dave posted about getting rid of billionaires.

 

[Katzndogz]

Rights come from the ruler, not nature. You have only the rights that the strong permit. Dictators dole out rights as favors so you better start ponying up to obama.

 

[PredFan]

It's a simple question.

Which, by the way, you couldn't answer.

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

I see where you are coming from. You have a different definition of "natural" than those who are proponents of Natural Rights.

 

[SniperFire]

I would like to know that as well.

The only one I can think of is the right to live. To not be killed by another.

Other than that..........

That right doesn't exist.

The right to not be killed? You are mistaken. If that right doesn't exist then no rights exist.

Swallow is of course arguing that the Founding of the Nation on God granted inalienable rights is incorrect.

Few Leftists actually believe in America.

 

[TNHarley]

I think he is talking about "mother nature" not what our species has given us

 

[Sallow]

because it appears you are headed down another track than the one laid out in the op, the basic tenets of Locke's writing is that humans have a responsibility to preserve and continue the human race. This is used as the justification to say that because of that humans have individual rights that are needed to preserve the species as a whole. those rights as described by Locke are "Life, Liberty and property"

I am just guessing that his inclusion of the statement "granted by our creator" kinda turns you off the idea based on a hatred of religion and G_D.

Consider that statement does not change if our maker is G_D or if our maker is the forces of nature.

That's fine.

You and Locke seem to think those are innate.

By the way..most of you folks like to cherry pick Locke. He also cautioned against the accumulation of wealth. Although that's probably part and parcel with railing against "Jewish Bankers" which was all the rage at the time.

But if god is the "maker" of the forces of nature, why isn't there any intervention when these "rights" are violated?

 

[SniperFire]

I think he is talking about "mother nature" not what our species has given us

The only right in nature, of course, is to eat and be eaten.

 

[dblack]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

The idea behind 'natural' rights (aka inalienable, intrinsic, god-given, etc...) as referenced in the US Constitution was to characterize the kind of rights that government is created to protect. As you may have noticed, "rights" is an overloaded term that refers to many different concepts, so it was necessary to clearly define what they were talking about.

Now, nature (or God, or government, for that matter) doesn't "give" us natural rights. They are a simply a by-product of having volition - the ability to think and choose our own actions. In our natural state as thinking creatures we enjoy perfect freedom to do as we wish unimpeded by other people. Natural rights is just another way to refer to the general concept of social freedom. We create government to protect as much of that freedom as possible.

Obviously, the 'natural' state ends as soon as we have to associate with other people. That's where government comes in. We need government to mediate when our respective 'freedoms' come into conflict. In order to avoid the ugliness of violence every time a dispute can't be resolved, we count on government instead.

The point of this concept, re: the Constitution, isn't to specify a list of rights to protect (natural rights are essentially infinite in number), it's to define the purpose of government - to protect our freedom (inalienable rights).

Based on your posting history I suspect you'll have some difficulty with this concept, but I applaud your efforts. It's an important topic and voters need a clear understanding of it to guide our country.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That right doesn't exist.

The right to not be killed? You are mistaken. If that right doesn't exist then no rights exist.

Swallow is of course arguing that the Founding of the Nation on God granted inalienable rights is incorrect.

Few Leftists actually believe in America.

liberals are against LIFE.....to them life is expendable....

liberals are against LIBERTY.....which is why they attack the Constitution....

liberals are againt THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS....except in their terms only....

these of course are all their man-made rules....

 

[Sallow]

That right doesn't exist.

The right to not be killed? You are mistaken. If that right doesn't exist then no rights exist.

Swallow is of course arguing that the Founding of the Nation on God granted inalienable rights is incorrect.

Few Leftists actually believe in America.

SniperFag..the nation was not founded on god granted rights. No god appears in the Constitution. And the Christian bible defines no rights. Only laws. And most of these laws do not appear in our system of justice.

Like you can be a faggot if you want too. That wouldn't be cool with Christians.

See SniperFag? Your faggotness isn't supported.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, Sallow, without the contest of divine right to rule created by the theory of natural rights, you would be the subject of a king or something similar. Natural law/rights came about most significantly during the enlightenment and challenged divine right to rule.

These rights, inalienable to man, mean that all men are created equal. That it is their natural right to pursue their goals and wishes (provided they do not infring upon others rights in the process). Now before you go off all half0witted (shocker, I know), slavery was a social issue in which Africans were not viewed as man, but as beasts or sub-humans and therefore, considered property at the time.

 

[Sallow]

simple answer......the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

yet nature allows the right to live and exist in the first place....and the liberty in order to live by cunning, speed, strength and agility....in the pursuit of happiness which may be to beat off the attacker or obtaining the next meal...

No it doesn't.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

None of those rights exist in nature.

You live by cunning, speed, strength and agility.

Eat or be eaten.

yet nature allows the right to live and exist in the first place....and the liberty in order to live by cunning, speed, strength and agility....in the pursuit of happiness which may be to beat off the attacker or obtaining the next meal...

No it doesn't.

how so...?

 

[Sallow]

Well, Sallow, without the contest of divine right to rule created by the theory of natural rights, you would be the subject of a king or something similar. Natural law/rights came about most significantly during the enlightenment and challenged divine right to rule.

These rights, inalienable to man, mean that all men are created equal. That it is their natural right to pursue their goals and wishes (provided they do not infring upon others rights in the process). Now before you go off all half0witted (shocker, I know), slavery was a social issue in which Africans were not viewed as man, but as beasts or sub-humans and therefore, considered property at the time.

Which basically kills your argument.

Rights are not innate.

 

[PredFan]

That right doesn't exist.

The right to not be killed? You are mistaken. If that right doesn't exist then no rights exist.

Swallow is of course arguing that the Founding of the Nation on God granted inalienable rights is incorrect.

Few Leftists actually believe in America.

I'm not talking about God. I don't think God comes under the heading of "Natural" law.

 

[Sallow]

yet nature allows the right to live and exist in the first place....and the liberty in order to live by cunning, speed, strength and agility....in the pursuit of happiness which may be to beat off the attacker or obtaining the next meal...

No it doesn't.

how so...?

Nature doesn't give you a "right" to live.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it doesn't kill my argument. The argument you're trying to construct is that the only rights anyone has are those given by a governing body. That's just not so. And even though the enlightment age came with hypocritical aspects, it was progress.


Trim your eyebrows.

 

[slackjawed]

because it appears you are headed down another track than the one laid out in the op, the basic tenets of Locke's writing is that humans have a responsibility to preserve and continue the human race. This is used as the justification to say that because of that humans have individual rights that are needed to preserve the species as a whole. those rights as described by Locke are "Life, Liberty and property"

I am just guessing that his inclusion of the statement "granted by our creator" kinda turns you off the idea based on a hatred of religion and G_D.

Consider that statement does not change if our maker is G_D or if our maker is the forces of nature.

That's fine.

You and Locke seem to think those are innate.

By the way..most of you folks like to cherry pick Locke. He also cautioned against the accumulation of wealth. Although that's probably part and parcel with railing against "Jewish Bankers" which was all the rage at the time.

But if god is the "maker" of the forces of nature, why isn't there any intervention when these "rights" are violated?

Locke wasn't a king, his writings are purely the philosophy of his time. It is still called 'enlightenment'.

You or I have no way of knowing if there is 'intervention' when rights are violated.

The idea

 

[blastoff]

Survival of the fittest.