Do Natural Rights Actually Exist?

[dblack]

you don't think it's a natural right to say no or yes to your own body & what happens to it? that 'right' doesn't go beyond the capacity to think & act?

You're radically misreading my comment. The capacity to think and act includes bodily sovereignty. It includes pretty much every right we might consider.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's the thing liberals get hung up on. Natural rights have nothing to do with laws, or whether a given government honors those rights. They're just the basic freedoms we all start with, our capacity to think and act. That's it.

Which can't really include the natural right to property as that would be incompatible with everyone else's liberty.

 

[dblack]

Which can't really include the natural right to property as that would be incompatible with everyone else's liberty.

All liberties can be in conflict with someone else's. That's why we have government.

 

[Curried Goats]

All liberties can be in conflict with someone else's. That's why we have government.

The right to life doesn't necessarily have to conflict with the right to liberty and vice versa, though they can. The right to property however inherently conflicts with both.

 

[dblack]

The right to life doesn't necessarily have to conflict with the right to liberty and vice versa, though they can. The right to property however inherently conflicts with both.

The right to property doesn't create conflict any more than other rights do.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" No "

* No *

No

 

[Curried Goats]

The right to property doesn't create conflict any more than other rights do.

Sure they do. I don't need to impose my will on others to have life or to exercise free will. I do have to impose myself on others to lay claim to property.

 

[dblack]

Sure they do. I don't need to impose my will on others to have life or to exercise free will.

You do if your free will conflicts with someone else's.

I do have to impose myself on others to lay claim to property.

Not unless there is a dispute over who controls said property. It's no different than any other right in that regard.

 

[Curried Goats]

You do if your free will conflicts with someone else's.

That's an if, it's not inherent to free will itself. I could use my free will to assault you but I don't have to, I can use my free will for lots of things that don't objectively involve you.

Not unless there is a dispute over who controls said property. It's no different than any other right in that regard.

In this case the dispute is over your subjective beliefs. What if I refuse to believe in them with you? It doesn't matter if you agree that I have life because I have life. It doesn't matter if you agree that I have independent thoughts and actions because objectively I have independent thoughts and actions. You need me to agree with you that you own a piece of property and if I don't agree then your only recourse is force.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do Natural Rights Actually Exist? If they do not then it's all intellectual bs.

Sure. The way caluclus exists. The way poems exist.

"Rights" have exactly as much substance as we grant them.

 

[dblack]

Sure. The way caluclus exists. The way poems exist.

"Rights" have exactly as much substance as we grant them.

I think the heart of this argument is the misunderstanding on what the phrase "god-given rights" means. There's nothing magical going on. It's just a reference to the base state of freedom that we all have as thinking beings. Think of it as the freedom you'd have if no one else was around. The goal, of the founders who used this phrase, was to preserve as much of that freedom as possible, recognizing that - as soon as someone else IS around - there is the potential for your freedom to conflict with someone else's. That's what government is for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

think the heart of this argument is the misunderstanding on what the phrase "god-given rights" means. There's nothing magical going on. It's just a reference to the base state of freedom that we all have as thinking beings.

Right, I get that. I'm not sure religious nutters get that.

 

[Curried Goats]

I think the heart of this argument is the misunderstanding on what the phrase "god-given rights" means. There's nothing magical going on. It's just a reference to the base state of freedom that we all have as thinking beings. Think of it as the freedom you'd have if no one else was around. The goal, of the founders who used this phrase, was to preserve as much of that freedom as possible, recognizing that - as soon as someone else IS around - there is the potential for your freedom to conflict with someone else's. That's what government is for.

Slavery was certainly a funny way of going about that goal. We don't need government to impose freedom, that exists naturally. You need collective force to impose will.

 

[dblack]

Slavery was certainly a funny way of going about that goal.

It sure was. The fundamental flaw of our nation's birth, I'd say.

We don't need government to impose freedom, that exists naturally.

Huh? How would a government "impose freedom"?

You need collective force to impose will.

Not sure what that means.

 

[Curried Goats]

It sure was. The fundamental flaw of our nation's birth, I'd say.

I'd say it's just a bad argument. Slavery next to murder is about the absolute objectively worse way to preserve freedom and liberty. Do the Founders the decency of not fantasizing about what they wanted and let's simply speak the objective truth of their actions which was liberty for themselves and advantage over others. When you engage in this sort of fantasy you start having fantastical ideas about what the law is rather than looking at the reality of what it is.

Huh? How would a government "impose freedom"?

It can't. That's my point. It only imposes will. That's not freedom.

Not sure what that means.

Well you're a libertarian. I only expect so much of your intellect.

 

[dblack]

I'd say it's just a bad argument. Slavery next to murder is about the absolute objectively worse way to preserve freedom and liberty. Do the Founders the decency of not fantasizing about what they wanted and let's simply speak the objective truth of their actions which was liberty for themselves and advantage over others. When you engage in this sort of fantasy you start having fantastical ideas about what the law is rather than looking at the reality of what it is.

Yep. We agree, it was a horrible thing.

Well you're a libertarian. I only expect so much of your intellect.

Whatever. If you don't want to be understand, I can't care.

 

[Plagerist]

Do natural rights exist? Yep.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yep. We agree, it was a horrible thing.

Whatever. If you don't want to be understand, I can't care.

I understand that you had no response to my arguments on property.

What I'm saying here is that what the law represents is collective force and will. All that aspirational shit is just fiarytale.

 

[dblack]

I understand that you had no response to my arguments on property.

What I'm saying here is that what the law represents is collective force and will. All that aspirational shit is just fiarytale.

What is it you're calling "aspirational shit"?

 

[Curried Goats]

What is it you're calling "aspirational shit"?

The stuff about preserving freedom. Objectively, the law is about bringing to bear collective force.