Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[The Rabbi]

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.

Free will is a property of the human mind. Rights are not a property of the human mind. A person permanently comatose has no free will. But no one will argue he doesn't have natural rights simply because he is comatose.
You cannot redefine natural rights to mean free will. You might as well define them as chicken dinner.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yea, since we're talking philosophy I like to interject my own.

My definition of free will would be the ability to operate ones own central nervous system. I've determine that will can be influenced by outside forces, but not (yet) operated by them.

Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.

My point was to prove that it cannot be determined that Rights are inborn.

That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.

If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.

It's a cold hard truth.

Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.

It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.

Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Like I said. This is mental masturbation and leaps away from the original topic. To converse regarding abstract concepts in this regard means we have to throw out the common human experience, the understanding that surround the term natural rights and it's implications entirely and go back to determinism, or free will. Create origination all over again and go from there. Again, that really wasn't the point, i do not believe.

My point was to prove that it cannot be determined that Rights are inborn.

That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.

If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.

It's a cold hard truth.

Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.

It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.

Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.

ALmost by definition that has to be the case. Who else bestows them?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

My point was to prove that it cannot be determined that Rights are inborn.

That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.

If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.

It's a cold hard truth.

Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.

It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.

Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.

The conversation started as a question of where rights came from.

You agreed with rabbi and I that they were abstract and un-provable.

The mental masturbator the whole time was yourself.

Uh, no. That's not how it went. But go with it! I've long since given up on keeping this within the proper realm and context. I even ran a game of repeater several times (something I f'in despise) on it.

It's all abstract, Brah. Nothing is real, everything is permitted.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

My point was to prove that it cannot be determined that Rights are inborn.

That is hasn't been determined, means that I was correct.

If it was mental masturbation this whole time, it was yours because you come back around to saying the same thing as the rabbi and I without ever batting an eyelid.

It's a cold hard truth.

Believing in those rights and all they stand for is what I do. But I'm also not naïve enough to just accept that those rights existed as-is without man having to interject.

It also means that they lay loosely in man's hands, and forever will.

Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.

ALmost by definition that has to be the case. Who else bestows them?

We already got you to say that these "rights" aren't egalitarian. So, we're not even on the same planet in this discussion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then you believe that man bestows upon men the "rights". I believe we covered this and that was where we disagreed. In no way am I going around the record again on it.

ALmost by definition that has to be the case. Who else bestows them?

We already got you to say that these "rights" aren't egalitarian. So, we're not even on the same planet in this discussion.

You never got me to say any such thing. There are no such things as natural rights, so how could I say they weren't egalitarian?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

ALmost by definition that has to be the case. Who else bestows them?

We already got you to say that these "rights" aren't egalitarian. So, we're not even on the same planet in this discussion.

You never got me to say any such thing. There are no such things as natural rights, so how could I say they weren't egalitarian?

Can i atleast get a "false dichotomy", or an ad absurdum?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

So you're saying that free will ontologically precedes the principle of the sanctity of human life?

Sanctity is a human philosophical concept.

Edit:

Saw your edit.
That we have free will does not speak to the origin of our rights, it only speaks to our desire for said rights.

Thank you, G.T. The first version confounded the point, expressing something I didn't intend.

However, the principle of the sanctity of human life is not a mere construct of culture. You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic metaphysical presupposition. Good luck proving that in the face of the classical laws of logic.

The principle of the sanctity of human life is embedded in God Himself, who is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities, not the stuff of some cultural construct.

And I already substantiated my premise here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863493

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Mere assertion
Factual error
False dichotomy.
You're not doing well here.

In fact no other nation or culture outside of Enlightenment western Europe and America believed in natural rights.
It is not basic. People band together to protect rights they agree they have from infringement by individuals or groups. Something you didnt consider.

Nonsense. So, what you're saying is that 1) man is not part of nature 2) rights are not egalitarian.

Ok, enjoy servitude, fella. If you believe your rights are dependent upon recognition from other humans then you do not have self ownership. you're part of the collective. They will tell you later what to think. Or maybe they already do. Prolly.

Wrong on all counts.
Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't. Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist.
And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave. An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.

No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.

 

[Katzndogz]

After 28 pages, it is confirmed that there are a number of people who believe that human beings have no rights other than which is bestowed by the government who also holds the right and power to withdraw any individual right it chooses.

Which means we are in for some very serious trouble.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong on all counts.
Man is certainly part of nature, rights aren't. Rights are nt egalitarian because they don't exist.
And you fall back on the usual dismissive libertarian thing: if you disagree then you must be a slave. An ad hominem fallacy to add to the others you've spouted in this thread.

No need for me to apologize. I didn't lie.

He's quite right about one thing, you could have just said chicken soup.

In his view they DONT EVEN EXIST.

Therefore, he's also saying they're not chicken soup.

There is no point there in saying "rabbi said rights are not chicken soup," rabbi simply doesn't believe rights are ANYTHING.

You didn't lie, you did take liberty with his context.

and I apologize for saying you lied, too.

TakeAStep has averred he is finished with this conversation about half a dozen times. When cornered he has resorted to a panoply of errors and fallacies. When challenged he dissimulates or avers that "we proven this already." This is the merely the last. Of course he lied about what I wrote. That is obvious. Equally obvious is that he has no valid arguments for his view. It is just something that he has been told so often, and repeated so often, without challenge that it simply is "self evident." That it would need proving isn't even a question.
It isn't that TakeAStep is incompetent or stupid. He isn't. But he never engaged in this kind of debate, never considered the issue closely enough. Nor could he come up with any sort of argument that would prove what he wants. Great philosophers have failed to do so, which is why I am persuaded that natural rights are chimeras: there are simply no proofs for its existence.

 

[The Rabbi]

After 28 pages, it is confirmed that there are a number of people who believe that human beings have no rights other than which is bestowed by the government who also holds the right and power to withdraw any individual right it chooses.

Which means we are in for some very serious trouble.

Good thing we have plenty of people, such as myself, who don't believe that.

That would be two of us. I wonder who he is talking about.