Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[Asclepias]

Bingo. Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats. Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate. Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...

Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline. The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.

Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind. It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less. I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.

Your post here is the polar opposite of what I and RKMBrown said. Unalienable rights are not something that people are owed or deserve and they allow nobody 'special' anything. The Founders recognized that they exist and are what each person perceives them to be and are to be considered inviolate so long as nobody's rights are infringed.

The minute government presumes to dictate what unalienable rights are, the government has assumed power to take away whatever rights it wishes to take. The Founders were determined that the federal government never be given such power.

The Leftist mind seems incapable of grasping that concept, or at least that appears to be the case on this thread. Those on the right are having far less problem with the concept.

After you take off the formal dressing its the same thing I've been saying all along. "Here are some rights that we say came from the air just because you are special".

 

[Asclepias]

The discussion was whether are not there is such a thing a natural right ---one that is not established by man , society or a government.
Is your claim that protection offered by natural law is dependent on social agreements ?

even a right granted from god would require being established my man. that circular

Not really. We need to prove the existence of God for that to be a true statement.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind. It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less. I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.

True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.

I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government? Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving. Wheres the humanity in that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hi Emily. Personally I think the Founders intended that liberty requires that we don't 'treat' such things at all. Liberty requires every person to be allowed his her thoughts, speech, beiefs, religious convictions, attitudes, virtues, prejudices, bigotry, morality, patriotism, etc. in absolute peace so long as nobody's rights are infringed. And that liberty would extend to organizations, corporations and other businesses, etc.

Bingo. Therein lies the underlying problem with majority based voting of democracies. When the majority of voters decide they want to be "treated" as special, the politicians become all to willing to take all the power they can get by promising and providing said treats. Success breeds a spoiled brat electorate who demand a continuous supply of unearned treats, thus leading to the decline of said electorate. Treats come in many forms, such as entitlements, punishments placed on enemy groups, pats on the back, grift, ...

Having torn down all barriers to tyranny of the majority, this country is now set for a major decline. The spoiled brats will demand larger and more regular treats till it no longer makes sense to work at all.

Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind. It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less. I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.

How do you not get dizzy running around in circles like that? No one is claiming special privileges, we are arguing for the rights that belong to everyone.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thats pretty much what claiming inalienable rights does to the mind. It makes people think they are owed or deserve special treatment when the real world could care less. I dont need someone to build up a picture in my mind of some sort of superiority in order to protect myself and my interests.

True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.

I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government? Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving. Wheres the humanity in that?

Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.

 

[Asclepias]

True, but the entire point of the discussion of natural rights was not that you are owed them, but rather that the government may not legislate them. Course that was stripped from us with the 14th due process clause ratified by the states only through the threat of certain death.

I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government? Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving. Wheres the humanity in that?

Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.

No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do. Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away. What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the OP was wondering if rights were secure without government? Saying there are rights floating around separate from what man has defined is misleading and false. Get rid of government and now its a case of only the strongest surviving. Wheres the humanity in that?

Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.

No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do. Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away. What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.

No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do. Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away. What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

You'd think the guy never heard of the American Revolution.

 

[Asclepias]

No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do. Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away. What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

You'd think the guy never heard of the American Revolution.

You'd think you would realize this is not the 1700's

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

You'd think the guy never heard of the American Revolution.

You'd think you would realize this is not the 1700's

I would never think you would think at all, which is why you are ignoring the fact that Gandhi lived in the 20th century.

 

[dilloduck]

Your strawman is so old it's a cliche... the straw man that says liberty means living in anarchy because there would be no government is asinine. We can stop the government from taking liberty away from law abiding citizens and still have room for laws against, theft, murder, rape, etc.

No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do. Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away. What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.

 

[Asclepias]

No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do. Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away. What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.

I thought Gandhi took a barrage of bullets and still defeated the British singlehandedly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No you cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do. Claiming inalienable rights if the government decides to take over will just be a point of amusement to them if they decided to bomb your home off the map or lock you away. What exactly are you going to do with your supposed inalienable rights if that occurs? Your rights from air are simply a security blanket nothing more.

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.

That doesn't change the fact that Gandhi never fired a shot, does it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet Gandhi managed to hand the greatest empire the world had ever seen a resounding defeat without firing a shot.

Feel free to ignore this fact, just like you do all other facts that contradict your opinion.

Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.

I thought Gandhi took a barrage of bullets and still defeated the British singlehandedly.

You are the one that said "(Y)ou cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do." I provided an example that proves that you are wrong, and, as usual, you prefer to try and pretend that I am misrepresenting the facts.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Actually quite a few people were killed in rioting that led up to Great Britain giving India it's Independence. and then there was that pesky WWII also.

independence from what?

what britain had no right to in the first place? Of course with strings attached like every other country britain has ever terrorized and taken over including the US which is really not much more than an extended british colony

 

[KokomoJojo]

You are the one that said "(Y)ou cant stop the government from taking away liberty unless you have bigger guns than they do." I provided an example that proves that you are wrong, and, as usual, you prefer to try and pretend that I am misrepresenting the facts.

see how far you get with that in america sometime. I'll bring the flowers. ~MLK

 

[KokomoJojo]

of course you have natural rights, but like any other brit/french/ aristocratically 'founded' government the real question is how the hel can you defend them in a system that refuses to recognize anything but political rights that suit their agenda?

 

[KokomoJojo]

technically a right is a valid 'claim'.

The OP is not properly framed.

Its not whether you have a right its whether you can enforce it. You have many rights that you cannot enforce.

You need the government who has a monopoly on the courts as the enforcement arm and if they give you the big FUCK YOU then forget it, who will you turn to? Russia?

In the beginning we had "Ultimate" ownership in land and real rights,




which over a very short time omnipotent sovereign allodial ownership was commingled with the fee and converted to mere "interests" in an estate,

(Guess who owns the "soil" in the US"? Not you!

and estate in FEE-Simple




of course meaning that the government also has an interest.

You got the right to live on any land in the US as long as you pay the rents and for the services to the overlord.



Interesting how your rights got usurped when you were not looking. Pun definitely intended.

However its not that they dont exist, but that the way the cookie crumbles when you let the black robed priests dictate our law in lieu of fully empowered juries of our peers with the power to judge both the facts and the "law" that no government agency has the right to overturn.



Sounds like God to me.


Oh and freedom of speech? Look at your state constitution. You ahve the freedom to pray and thats where it ends. You do not have the freedom to EXERCISE YOUR religion only the governments religion. If they ever give you the freedom to exercize your religion they will demand its behind closed doors. While in public its the states religion you will exercise.

Now as you can see they distinguish between political and natural, however there are several court cases where the state claims they have no obligation to protect anyone. You pay taxes on your property for rents and services no different than any vassal in england before the revolution, the only thing that changed is the 'STYLE' of tenure, the tenure is as feudal today as it ever was! LOL

as everyone should be able to see you own your land and tenements but NOT the soil, the state owns the soil and is your ultimate land lord, hence when you fail to pay taxes you 'forfeit' not your property but yout right of property! tada! They got you by the balls! Your natural rights are so usurped you aint never getting them back!

 

[dr.d]

U certainly have the right to exercise ur religion..and the right to speak..and the right to bear arms..etc,
Until those "rights" of urs prevent others from excercising THEIR rights to different religions or none at all..and their ability to speak and be heard...or their right to NOT bear arms or be safe from those who feel their unfettered use of semi-automatic guns with unlimited ordinance precludes the safety and rights of others who differ...
Freedom is not single minded in a truly free nation...it must be available to all citizens..not just those that agree with a particular ideology...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[KokomoJojo]

U certainly have the right to exercise ur religion..and the right to speak..and the right to bear arms..etc,
Until u feel that those "rights" of urs prevent others from excercising THEIR rights to different religions or none at all..and their ability to speak and be heard...or their right to NOT bear arms or be safe from those who feel their unfettered use of semi-automatic guns with unlimited ordinance precludes the safety and rights of others who differ...
Freedom is not single minded in a truly free nation...it must be available to all citizens..not just those that agree with a particular ideology...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

what about non citizens who have no obligation to listen to anyones bullshit or cater to their fears?

unfettered use? ordinance? who cares? you think you have the right to tell people what they can buy when they have committed no crime?

anyone can join the citizen contract. so what?

No you dont have the right to exercise your religion thats nonsense. How many more court cases do you need to prove it to yourself? You have the right to pray to your god and that is where it ends! period.

the government is the new religion and the second you forget it you will pay

If you have not figgered it out yet they [the states] took all your rights away. you have about the same rights as "free range bond slaves".