Do Natural Rights Actually Exist?

[Dante]

Natural rights, inalienable rights, etc - are merely a recognition of human capacity for volition. All of them originate from the right to think, and act, for yourself. Which is "endowed by the creator", or otherwise innate to the human mind. It's just a feature of human intelligence. Governments can choose to either honor these rights, or violate them. But they can't take them away. Short of killing or imprisoning someone, every human will have the capacity to think for themselves.

Let's start here:
noun: volition
the faculty or power of using one's will. What exactly is a "will?"

"originate from the right to?" Here we are. Where does this "right" originate from? I am not against rights, but I do not mistake metaphors like "rights" for something it is not. This injection of a 'creator" endowing rights on beings? It's childish, magical thinking.

"Innate to the human mind?" The latest in brain science does not support this.

Arguing about governments and rights is great. We get as human beings to demand and insist we have rights, but rights are nothing but human constructs.

 

[dblack]

Let's start here:
noun: volition
the faculty or power of using one's will. What exactly is a "will?"

"originate from the right to?" Here we are. Where does this "right" originate from? I am not against rights, but I do not mistake metaphors like "rights" for something it is not. This injection of a 'creator" endowing rights on beings? It's childish, magical thinking.

"Innate to the human mind?" The latest in brain science does not support this.

Arguing about governments and rights is great. We get as human beings to demand and insist we have rights, but rights are nothing but human constructs.

mkay.

Liberals get all hung up on this shit. I can never quite figure out why. Why is it so important for you that rights be "human constructs"? Why does it matter?

 

[dblack]

The concept of inalienable rights is merely a recognition of the base human state. Without anyone else around to interfere, humans are free to think and act for themselves. When there's more than one person, it complicates things and rights can come into conflict. That's where government comes in.

 

[dblack]

He just needs to feel smart.

The best way to do that is to say something smart.

 

[zaangalewa]

when the guy down the street looses his freedoms, so do the rest of us Zaang

one might say it's a collectivist concept , others might claim it democracy

~S~

Yes and no. Natural rights are god given rights. We don't know them all - and sometimes we still have no words for - but we feel them in our well educated hearts. Every creature has rights!

Very short my Christian statement in this context: The Israelites left the slavery of Egypt where "death" was in the centre of every single life. Egypt was a great and wonderful culture - but to live as a kind of living dead centered always only in death is not really nice. Now "we" - the followers of the Israelites - are in a country where unborn human beings will be killed and call this country somehow "the country where milk and honey flows". We are mighty, rich and powerful. No one suffers hunger. But "milk and honey" is not abortion. Milk and honey is baby food. We are happy with babies - we are not happy with aborted babies. All of us. All mankind since we live and as long as we will live. Look at the people who see a baby of whatever species in a zoo. We are not here to kill this planet - we are here to protect this planet. With all lifeforms - and not only centered in egocentrism. We are a noble species - and not an intergalactic joke of weirdos who murder even their own breed. We are the children of god.

 

[Dante]

mkay.

Liberals get all hung up on this shit. I can never quite figure out why. Why is it so important for you that rights be "human constructs"? Why does it matter?

Liberals? Like all those liberal churches and synagogues?


It's not all that important. We all (most people) demand and fight for rights. Like my forebears and the MAGNA CARTA thing. It matters because WE the people made it happen. The King, the Sovereign was said to have that silly god on his side.

Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.

https://www.parliament.uk/magnacarta/

 

[Dante]

The concept of inalienable rights is merely a recognition of the base human state. Without anyone else around to interfere, humans are free to think and act for themselves. When there's more than one person, it complicates things and rights can come into conflict. That's where government comes in.

Without anyone else around... most humans are breakfast, lunch, dinner or fertilizer. The so-called natural state -- another human construct.

You don't get it. My family fought and earned us all rights. Again, the MAGNA CARTA thing. That started it all for the English/British colonists in North America (my family).

 

[Dante]

Yes and no. Natural rights are god given rights.

And if one day we humans prove this god does not exist?

 

[dblack]

Liberals? Like all those liberal churches and synagogues?


It's not all that important. We all (most people) demand and fight for rights. Like my forebears and the MAGNA CARTA thing. It matters because WE the people made it happen. The King, the Sovereign was said to have that silly god on his side.

You seem to be completely missing the point. Inalienable rights are just what we start with, before we ever interact with other people. They were just trying to establish the level of freedom any human has by default. A baseline. That's all. The question of which rights government protects, or is prohibited from violating, is an entirely different matter.

Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.

yep.

 

[Dante]

You seem to be completely missing the point. Inalienable rights are just what we start with, before we ever interact with other people. They were just trying to establish the level of freedom any human has be default. A baseline. That's all. The question of which rights government protects, or is prohibited from violating, is an entirely different matter.



yep.

Nope. Before we ever interact with other people? When was this? In Africa? When our ancestors traveled out of Africa? You do believe in science, don't you?

When was man ever born alone and free? Was it virgin births with a mother deserting a baby? Think. Think it through.

Does a baby had a fully developed brain?

 

[zaangalewa]

Procrustes Stretched

Drugs? What means "to laugh" for you?

 

[Dante]

Procrustes Stretched

Drugs? What means "to laugh" for you?

MDMA Treatment for PTSD Fails to Secure Federal Approval

One day after the FDA declined to approve the psychedelic for medical use, a journal retracted three studies of MDMA-assisted therapy due to unethical conduct by researchers

www.smithsonianmag.com

Lots of MAGA Warriors on Jan 6 were into drugs.

 

[dblack]

Nope. Before we ever interact with other people? When was this? In Africa? When our ancestors traveled out of Africa? You do believe in science, don't you?

When was man ever born alone and free? Was it virgin births with a mother deserting a baby? Think. Think it through.

Does a baby had a fully developed brain?

It's a hypothetical. But, you know - nevermind. You seem to have some kind of agenda, and I wouldn't want to interfere.

 

[Dante]

It's a hypothetical. But, you know - nevermind. You seem to have some kind of agenda, and I wouldn't want to interfere.

I have no agenda. That would be projection on your part?

You now claim natural rights are based on hypotheticals?

 

[Dante]

I have no agenda. That would be projection on your part?

You now claim natural rights are based on hypotheticals?

dblack What about the "unborn" and rights?

 

[dblack]

dblack What about the "unborn" and rights?

Nah. You seem like a douchebag.

 

[Dante]

Nah. You seem like a douchebag.

Ahh!

 

[zaangalewa]

Nope. Before we ever interact with other people? When was this? In Africa? When our ancestors traveled out of Africa? You do believe in science, don't you?

When was man ever born alone and free? Was it virgin births with a mother deserting a baby? Think. Think it through.

Does a baby had a fully developed brain?

I could laugh sarcastically about how you use the word "sciene", ignorant. But I do not do so. Extremely short: Believers in science are not scientists. A real scientist doubts what we know. But one thing in this context here is totally clear. Under normal living conditions, a woman's fertilized egg cell becomes something more than just a brain in a utopian bottle. The egg cell will become a human being - but it takes a whole village to raise a human being. No women left alone. No men who don't take responsibility and win themselve to death.

By the way: Scientific interesting is in this context that women could be indeed an own species without men. Men are not necessary for the fertilization of an egg. Somehow the sentence "When God created man, she only practiced" has a good grain of truth.

 

[dblack]

Ahh!

Yep. You have a lot of preconceived notions. So you can go sit in the corner and jerkoff to those. I'll try not to interfere with your fantasy.

 

[Dante]

Yep. You have a lot of preconceived notions. So you can go sit in the corner and jerkoff to those. I'll try not to interfere with your fantasy.

"preconceived notions?"

Right. Like my natural rights I got them at birth.

LOL