You Have Only Two Rights

[Buck111]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

You also have these obligations: To cause no harm to other persons and their property or to the innocent beings of this planet, including the planet itself.

No bills of rights, no constitutions and no governments can change these basic concepts. All government and its constitutions serve to do is confuse and conflagulate, distract and manipulate. Writs on paper do not grant nor protect rights. Writs on paper serve only those who wrote them

 

[usmbguest5318]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

Nature does not accord the right not to be harmed. The predator-prey dynamic demonstrates that in as palpable a way as can be done.

 

[Buck111]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

Nature does not accord the right not to be harmed. The predator-prey dynamic demonstrates that in as palpable a way as can be done.

The prey has the right to defend against the predator. Birds often violently defend their nests from cats. Mice defend themselves by building homes the predator cannot enter.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

Nature does not accord the right not to be harmed. The predator-prey dynamic demonstrates that in as palpable a way as can be done.

The prey has the right to defend against the predator. Birds often violently defend their nests from cats. Mice defend themselves by building homes the predator cannot enter.

That they do, but that would the be the right to defend oneself, not the right not to be harmed/attacked.

Also, I'm not of a mind that an instinctual behavior as essential as self-preservation is a right. It's merely what one does; it's a behavior. Right or no right, creatures are going to do what they can to ensure their existence.

 

[Buck111]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

Nature does not accord the right not to be harmed. The predator-prey dynamic demonstrates that in as palpable a way as can be done.

The prey has the right to defend against the predator. Birds often violently defend their nests from cats. Mice defend themselves by building homes the predator cannot enter.

That they do, but that would the be the right to defend oneself, not the right not to be harmed/attacked.

Also, I'm not of a mind that an instinctual behavior as essential as self-preservation is a right. It's merely what one does; it's a behavior. Right or no right, creatures are going to do what they can to ensure their existence.

My original post reflects the rights of human beings. My post in reply to your previous post was an example of how animals protect themselves from harm since your post was basic 'predator and prey'. Do animals have a 'right' to not be eaten? No. To they have a right not to be harmed? In some cases. Animals rarely kill solely for the sake of killing. They kill to eat or to protect. Those are their natural instincts. They are also basic instincts of men. To go outside those instincts is to cause undo harm.

"...creatures are going to do what they can to ensure their existence."
The right to exist stems from the right not to be harmed.

When a bird protects its nest from a cat that bird is exercising its right not to be harmed.

 

[Bleipriester]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

Nature does not accord the right not to be harmed. The predator-prey dynamic demonstrates that in as palpable a way as can be done.

The prey has the right to defend against the predator. Birds often violently defend their nests from cats. Mice defend themselves by building homes the predator cannot enter.

Nonsense. Birds and mice are being attacked and eaten without lightnings strafing the predators. This is what makes our civilization different from the law of the jungle. Civilization does not appear from nothing, it is an achievement that actively must be protected. The day on which the weak are declared prey is the day on which civilization ends. The most brutal and reckless will prevail and humankind will degenerate to animals.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

Nature does not accord the right not to be harmed. The predator-prey dynamic demonstrates that in as palpable a way as can be done.

The prey has the right to defend against the predator. Birds often violently defend their nests from cats. Mice defend themselves by building homes the predator cannot enter.

That they do, but that would the be the right to defend oneself, not the right not to be harmed/attacked.

Also, I'm not of a mind that an instinctual behavior as essential as self-preservation is a right. It's merely what one does; it's a behavior. Right or no right, creatures are going to do what they can to ensure their existence.

My original post reflects the rights of human beings. My post in reply to your previous post was an example of how animals protect themselves from harm since your post was basic 'predator and prey'. Do animals have a 'right' to not be eaten? No. To they have a right not to be harmed? In some cases. Animals rarely kill solely for the sake of killing. They kill to eat or to protect. Those are their natural instincts. They are also basic instincts of men. To go outside those instincts is to cause undo harm.

"...creatures are going to do what they can to ensure their existence."
The right to exist stems from the right not to be harmed.

When a bird protects its nest from a cat that bird is exercising its right not to be harmed.

Your OP speaks of rights accorded by nature. If one is going to take about natural rights, one must dispense with considerations accruing from constructs humanity have established. One of those things is the notion of civilization and all that comes with it.

When a bird protects its nest from a cat that bird is exercising its right not to be harmed.

That's a desire, not a right.

 

[Chuz Life]

In as much as a "right" is a claim to or an entitlement to something. . . I think the closest to (and the strongest argument for) a natural right is the right (claim to / entitlement to) the life they are living. I arrive at this conclusion by considering the answers to this question.

1. Who does the life of any living thing belong to, if not to itself?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

You also have these obligations: To cause no harm to other persons and their property or to the innocent beings of this planet, including the planet itself.

No bills of rights, no constitutions and no governments can change these basic concepts. All government and its constitutions serve to do is confuse and conflagulate, distract and manipulate. Writs on paper do not grant nor protect rights. Writs on paper serve only those who wrote them

"Rights" are a human construct and must be fought for and won, over and over. However, a case could be made that humans are a part of nature.

There is also no [natural?] "obligation to cause no harm to persons or property or the innocent beings of this planet, including the planet itself". There are human-made laws that we hope keeps people from harming each other and the planet but really, they don't.

And your last paragraph is completely wrong. We fight wars and make laws and fight for our constitution and then we fight for all of that again and again.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

You also have these obligations: To cause no harm to other persons and their property or to the innocent beings of this planet, including the planet itself.

No bills of rights, no constitutions and no governments can change these basic concepts. All government and its constitutions serve to do is confuse and conflagulate, distract and manipulate. Writs on paper do not grant nor protect rights. Writs on paper serve only those who wrote them

these are incredibly basic and really only apply to non-humans.

what one person may consider harm, another may find joy. Consider S&M.
some people like killing, some people consider killing necessary in certain circumstances while some won't stop someone from killing them.

owning vast property may be seen as harm to another.


You're thinking that in the wild the strong wouldn't harm the weak for what they have, and that just doesn't work out.


that's why rights must be written down and fought for

 

[bgrouse]

Under the laws of nature you have but two rights: The right to not be harmed in your person or your property and the right to defend your person and your property.

You also have these obligations: To cause no harm to other persons and their property or to the innocent beings of this planet, including the planet itself.

No bills of rights, no constitutions and no governments can change these basic concepts. All government and its constitutions serve to do is confuse and conflagulate, distract and manipulate. Writs on paper do not grant nor protect rights. Writs on paper serve only those who wrote them

What is "your property?" Government determines and enforces title.