Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

Does a natural right to life, inalienable, not exist? Can someone take my life and give it to someone else, or keep it for themselves?
Is my life transferable to someone else?

Ability=\= right.
existence =\= right.
instinct =\= right.
desire =\= right.

You've done this a few hundred times now, but it doesn't address the question. it's just more semantic dodging on your part. Let someone else try if you're unsure how to answer.

 

[Listening]

We should agree, first..what are "rights"?



The contention is that "Natural" rights are something 'real'.

And that "government" is wholly not necessary.

I dispute that contention.

Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute. If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?

That you need government to breath ?

Breathing is not a right.

It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.

Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.

If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.

Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.

It's not a hard concept, really.

I'll repeat my question...

Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute. If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?

 

[percysunshine]

Do Natural Wrongs Exist Without Government?

Toss that one around the cranial command center for a while.

.

 

[dblack]

Thus you are automatically defining 'natural rights' as a construct of government. Using that as a premise, there is not a debate. Maybe you can start with a premise where there is room for a debate. Otherwise...

99% of this thread consists not of arguments, but squabbles over definitions.

Which has been my contention all along when it comes to discussing political matters. If people can agree on definitions, it seems that the rest works itself out.

Someone put forth HealthCare as a "right". Then someone else says "A right is something available to all which requires nothing from anyone else for them to enjoy it". These two don't match at all.

Yeah... and it's one kind of crazy to start into an argument without first clearly stating the premise. But what blows my mind is how often people will, after running smack into the fact that they're just using a different definition of some fundamental term, jump right back into the argument as though it's still valid - even though it's been recognized that they're simply talking about different things. I guess some people just like to duke it out, even if it's not making any particular sense.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, dude. I'm fully aware that the proper definition of right completely and utterly escapes you. We have online dictionaries should you choose to consult one.

 

[Sallow]

Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute. If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?

That you need government to breath ?

Breathing is not a right.

It's a function that is part of the autonomic nervous system. I "breath" whether I want to or not. Generally, I don't even think about it.

Now if I was in the wilderness and wanted to survive, I would be able to do it on my own, but with great hardship.

If I wanted to reduce the hardship, I would band together with other humans. And that's where "rights" start to come in.

Because humans, in order to live together, have to define parameters of behavior between them.

It's not a hard concept, really.

I'll repeat my question...

Why don't you do us a favor and tell us what it is you dispute. If it is that government is wholly not necessary, then what is your counter ?

I think I have.

Rights exist within a Society.

And governments are part and parcel with that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

semantics semantics semantics!


it's what is for dinner!!!

 

[Sallow]

99% of this thread consists not of arguments, but squabbles over definitions.

Which has been my contention all along when it comes to discussing political matters. If people can agree on definitions, it seems that the rest works itself out.

Someone put forth HealthCare as a "right". Then someone else says "A right is something available to all which requires nothing from anyone else for them to enjoy it". These two don't match at all.

Yeah... and it's one kind of crazy to start into an argument without first clearly stating the premise. But what blows my mind is how often people will, after running smack into the fact that they're just using a different definition of some fundamental term, jump right back into the argument as though it's still valid - even though it's been recognized that they're simply talking about different things. I guess some people just like to duke it out, even if it's not making any particular sense.

That part of that post is not correct.

Even the right to liberty.

As you folks like to point out all the time, soldiers are constantly defending our freedom.

And while most may not see that, there really are people that work constantly to preserve the rights of people in this country.

 

[dblack]

Which has been my contention all along when it comes to discussing political matters. If people can agree on definitions, it seems that the rest works itself out.

Someone put forth HealthCare as a "right". Then someone else says "A right is something available to all which requires nothing from anyone else for them to enjoy it". These two don't match at all.

Yeah... and it's one kind of crazy to start into an argument without first clearly stating the premise. But what blows my mind is how often people will, after running smack into the fact that they're just using a different definition of some fundamental term, jump right back into the argument as though it's still valid - even though it's been recognized that they're simply talking about different things. I guess some people just like to duke it out, even if it's not making any particular sense.

That part of that post is not correct.

Even the right to liberty.

As you folks like to point out all the time, soldiers are constantly defending our freedom.

And while most may not see that, there really are people that work constantly to preserve the rights of people in this country.

You're conflating the protection of a right, with its existence. Most here are. Indeed, you're probably, also like most here, defining a right as synonymous with its status as a protected right. That's where most of the confusion begins.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Thankfully, it is a widely held understanding that that humans have certain natural rights. That is, of their human nature. They are of course, part of nature.

Here is a good debate for the "dont exist vs. the yes they do crowds.

https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/arena/do-natural-rights-exist

Natural Rights Come from Human Nature

When various skeptics question the soundness of the American political system, one of their targets is the idea of human nature. After all, the founders took their political philosophy mainly from John Locke, who thought human nature does exist and, based on what we know of it (and a few other evident matters), we can reach the conclusion that all human beings have certain rights. This is what is meant by holding that there are natural rights and that they are prelegal, not a creation of government.


Natural Rights Don't Exist

The doctrine of natural rights seems like a good deal for libertarians. If individuals have intrinsic and inviolable rights to their person and property, we can avoid the messiness of consequentialist reasoning and confidently claim that freedom is the objectively correct answer, regardless of any cultural context or government decree.
But natural rights are incapable of doing the philosophical work expected of them. The argument for such rights is weak, their consistent application would seriously undermine the market order, and a more robust case for freedom can be made on other grounds.
To put things bluntly: Natural rights theory is wrong, useless, and unnecessary.




read it all at the link.

 

[Sallow]

Do Natural Wrongs Exist Without Government?

Toss that one around the cranial command center for a while.

.

Chicken of the sea.

Is it really chicken?

In the sea?

Really?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

semantics semantics semantics!


it's what is for dinner!!!

Cop out cop out cop out.

I don't need to cop out. We've gone over it ad nauseam. You simply refuse to see it any other way than rights do not exist in nature. When pressed that mans reason is his natural state, you reject that, and move on to equating action, existent, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc, with not beig equal to a right. You're game is called semantics.

And i do bow to you. You played that sucker for pages
without skipping a beat...or at least quick to change words around to match the game. It was well done.


have a great weekend, everyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing you cited is natural.

"Rights" by their very nature are a human construct.

Yeah. That's only like the 100th time that claim has been made on this thread. Heard that. Dealt with that. Got the T-shirt.

You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition.

What none of you on this thread have ever done is provide a rational justification for that claim. There it is again suspended in midair.

What is the argument which actually demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?

Here's an easier one for you: how does one distinguish the formal difference between civil liberties and civil rights? Note: the question is not what they are, respectively, though one must begin with the what, but how one distinguishes the former from the latter.

There's no argument really.

You guys have to rely on esoteric constructs which have little or no meaning in the real world.

"Rights" aren't even universal and differ between human cultures.

The fact that this country had slavery absolutely destroys your argument. Even moreso that this country participated in torture in the modern age.

Governments are human constructs set up to protect human rights. But even that construct doesn't work out all the time. If right were "natural"? That simply wouldn't be the case.

Civil liberties vary, not rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Still at I see. If any such thing as a 'natural right' existed I think you would have found it by now,

I left the wreckage of 3 different people that thought they were smarter than nature in the ditch already, do you want to make it 4?

let's face it rights are flexible things, man made things, and sometimes agreed upon and sometimes not. Just today I was reading a piece on the Abortion debate, I will link it below. Science mixed with politics made conception a person with rights in spite of the fact a great many conceptions end naturally. But facts don't really matter once someone assigns a right to anything at all.

You are confusing rights and civil liberties. One you have ins spite of government, the other you only get if government gives it to you. Once you understand that fundamental difference you might be able to discuss the issues.

Do animals have rights in this natural scheme for surely a cow or chicken feels pain and is a living being. Can we then argue animals have rights and we should act accordingly.

Yes.

If humans have natural rights wouldn't most actions that affect them negatively be a denial of natural rights?

No.

If property is a right why do so many have so little and what can we do to correct that injustice?

You are confusing natural rights to your body with real estate.

If a person has a right to no harm is not the lack of adequate healthcare a denial of their natural rights?

Only if you think slavery is a right.

Consider children as they form a place where the topic gets even stickier. Do children have a natural right to well being or are they simply destined to live in whatever situation they find themselves in - feel free to extrapolate on that question.

no one has a natural right to well being. If they did, there would be no disease.

"No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any." Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche argued that a superman had rights because he simply took them, while other people wanted someone to hand them over on a silver platter.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray

"Toleration was certainly the term of choice in matters of religious liberty before American independence. It had been made popular by writings such as John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration and copied into the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 by George Mason. Young James Madison objected, however, and when he succeeded in changing the word tolerance to the words free exercise, he advanced the cause of religious liberty by light-years. Tolerance is too condescending and uncertain. It is the gesture of the strong toward the weak, the government toward the citizenry, and the majority toward the minority. Free exercise, by contrast, is inalienable because it is the inalienable right of everyone, the minority no less than the majority, the weak as well as the poor, and the citizens just as much as the government." Os Guinness

"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. " Julius Caesar


"“God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul” "Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie

Hobby Lobby and contraception: How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.

I see you still have an unparallelled ability to post quotes that directly contradict the point you are trying to make. Have you considered taking a position, finding all the quotes that you think support it, and then arguing the opposite without getting new quotes? That would turn you over night from one of the most clueless posters to one of the most insightful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Natural rights only exist as ideas or opinions. No one can prove they exist; no one can even define them in the sense of what is or isn't a natural right.

If you ignore the fact that I have done both you have a point.