Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

So the idea of government existed before the actuality of government existed?
Where did the idea of government exist before?

I suppose the earliest governments weren't really thought out but just kind of fell into place. family and tribe.

So family or tribe aren't ideas about something?

They are more than ideas. They exist.

 

[RKMBrown]

You can try. But you better bring a big gun.

Why bring a gun when you can bring an army of Federal Agents to defend a State's right to take said liberties away on a whim? See Wacko mass murders. See Katrina disarming of the citizens to "protect" them from themselves for demonstrations. See Un-Patriot act drone killings of American citizens.

The 14th amendment due process clause allows the states, and by inclusion feds acting on behalf of the states, to take our life, liberty, and happiness away from us by merely making up whatever excuse they want and calling it due process.

Indeed, these are outrages. Still you're not saying that natural rights don't exist, are you?

You're moral outrage--and right you are!--arises from somewhere inside you, not from without.

The concept of a natural right, presupposes the means to defend said right, for if not defended then it was not a right at all but merely a hope or a platitude.

Defense of said right can come in many forms. Self defense, group defense, ... The group can be a loosely coupled mob, a well defined organization, a local, state, or federal government.

Thus, the inclusion or exclusion of federal government defense of said rights, natural or otherwise is merely scope for the defense of said rights.

Of course, for every individual and / or group wanting and or providing for said defense there are normally equal forces opposing said rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.

But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'. I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept. In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.

"Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same. Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.

In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do. Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees. Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them. Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her. To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.

Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be. And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.

 

[RKMBrown]

After thinking about this a great deal, I do understand the reluctance of some to accept a concept of 'natural rights' that exist separate from what the government says will be rights.

But I see 'natural rights' as the result of what liberty is even though liberty is listed among those things seen as 'natural rights'. I think those who have promoted the concept also came from that concept. In other words, when unrestrained by any other, liberty says we are free to be whomever and whatever we are, to seek whatever our spirit or mind can conceive, to prosper ourselves how we manage to do that.

"Natural rights" recognizes and accepts that and also must respect the 'natural right' of others to do the same. Once our pursuit of whatever pleasures or ambitions might be infringes on somebody else's rights; i.e. requires contribution or participation by any other, we are no longer in the realm of 'natural rights'.

In liberty, bees buzz and do what they do. Put them in a box so that they can no longer do that, and their 'natural right' to be bees still exists, but is denied to the bees. Likewise the wild horse that grazes the field or the birds of the air all do what comes naturally to them. Humankind, in his/her natural state, dreams and hopes and believes and aspires and looks to his/her own pleasures and what profits him/her. To acknowledge, respect, and defend a person's ability to be who/what s/he is naturally is to secure our rights.

Good government that acknowledges and promote liberty does not dictate what society must be, but secures the 'natural rights' of the people and then leaves them alone to be whoever or whatever they want to be. And that means that no man can be required or forced to serve another.

You are tying your self up in knots trying to recursively define liberty and natural rights.

It's not that hard.

lib·er·ty:
1. the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
(Websters)

What liberty is not:
The liberty to take someone's liberty away from them.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights: legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system, while natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

 

[dilloduck]

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

 

[emilynghiem]

I was going to post a list of examples of natural laws that exist and affect human behavior
(regardless if we write them down as religious scriptures or secular/civil laws
or recognize them as existent at all much less as universal for all people).

1. laws of supply and demand
2. law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, pack mentality or pecking order social caste or hierarchy
to establish dominance of stronger over submissive or leaders over followers
3. respect for elders or ancestors, lineage, passing down traditions as cultural identity,
when in Rome do as the Romans do
4. checks and balances, for every action there is equal and opposite reaction
5. laws of karma, cause and effect, justice, consequences to actions
6. laws of attraction (positive or negative begets more of the same), scarcity vs abundance
mentality, forgiveness brings healing while unforgiveness blocks with destructive energy
7. influence from local to global, connection between individual and collective; natural compassion or conscience for others
8. spiritual or social development in stages, also stages of grief and recovery process
9. all human experience on three levels of body, mind and spiritual or collective level
10. learning curve by trial and error, experience, scientific method of studying problems to develop solutions
11. path of least resistance: human will, desire for free will, consent or control in decisions; resistance to change leads to opposition or protest, conflicts can escalate into violence
12. pain/pleasure principle, choices and perception biased by mental/emotional association with experiences which affects how we interpret events and concepts in life

I was trying to explain that even if people don't believe or think in terms of "natural rights"
the same experiences, actions and reactions in relationships between people in society
can still be expressed using general terms that describe "universal laws" or principles that apply to all people.

Even if you believe the only force in life is the "law of the jungle"
you are basically framing all events under this principle as "universal to all people"

It's still a form of recognizing some underlying law that operates
independent of any manmade laws or government.

This principles come first, by nature, and then all other laws
or relationships are defined or expressed by those forces of nature.

 

[RKMBrown]

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

I was going to post a list of examples of natural laws that exist and affect human behavior
(regardless if we write them down as religious scriptures or secular/civil laws
or recognize them as existent at all much less as universal for all people).

1. laws of supply and demand
2. survival of the fittest, pack mentality or pecking order social caste or hierarchy
to establish dominance of stronger over submissive or leaders over followers
3. respect for elders or ancestors, lineage, passing down traditions as cultural identity,
when in Rome do as the Romans do
4. checks and balances, for every action there is equal and opposite reaction
5. laws of karma, cause and effect, justice, consequences to actions
6. laws of attraction (positive or negative begets more of the same), scarcity vs abundance
mentality, forgiveness brings healing while unforgiveness blocks with destructive energy
7. influence from local to global, connection between individual and collective; natural compassion or conscience for others
8. spiritual or social development in stages, also stages of grief and recovery process
9. all human experience on three levels of body, mind and spiritual or collective level
10. learning curve by trial and error, experience, scientific method of studying problems to develop solutions
11. path of least resistance: human will, desire for free will, consent or control in decisions; resistance to change leads to opposition or protest, conflicts can escalate into violence
12. pain/pleasure principle, choices and perception biased by mental/emotional association with experiences which affects how we interpret events and concepts in life

laws of karma

 

[dilloduck]

Survival of the fittest ?

We better stop right there.
These natural laws aren't going to get us where we are headed.

( you forgot the law of gravity )

Karma = magical thinking. It's right up there with going to heaven if you do the right things.

 

[dilloduck]

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I can define a phoenix for you. It doesn't mean they exist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

 

[dilloduck]

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Morality makes it sound so religious tho.

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In a theoretical way.

IN reality? of course not.

I'm not even sure these "rights" exist WITH government standing for them.

What is this reality in which they don't exist? Would you define it? In other words, what do you mean by reality?

I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.

Well, then, you are obviously wrong, aren't you?

The rights of private property, for example, have existed since the dawn of man at the very least in one code of law or another. For examples, they exist in natural law, Hammurabi law, Mosaic Law, Roman Law, Grecian Law, common law, constitutional law, case law. . . .

What else are you wrong about?

 

[RKMBrown]

No definitive list of natural rights or liberties exists. We have vague descriptions from individuals and groups of how they think people ( and in some cases animals and things ) should be treated and of what people should be able to do without restraint but again these are all moral "should" that are spouted from people's intellects and all creations of the human mind.

So how natural are human thoughts and actions ? What is the norm and who gets to decide for nature?

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Baloney. Why don't you just argue how big bigger is. Or how fair fairness is. Natural rights have nothing to do with morality of nature, mother nature, or any other such nonsensical whimsical blathering.

 

[dilloduck]

What is this reality in which they don't exist? Would you define it? In other words, what do you mean by reality?

I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.

Well, then, you are obviously wrong, aren't you?

The rights of private property, for example, have existed since the dawn of man at the very least in one code of law or another. For examples, they exist in natural law, Hammurabi law, Mosaic Law, Roman Law, Grecian Law, common law, constitutional law, case law. . . .

What else are you wrong about?

So how much property does everyone have a natural right to ?

 

[RKMBrown]

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

While one might think the right to life is a natural right, said right was taken from us in the 14th Amendment when Due Process as determined by the tyranny of the majority.

So as you say ... it may be that all of our Natural rights have been taken already. Perhaps to be taken back by us or our children at some future point. Rise o Phoenix... Rise!

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm pretty sure he meant natural rights don't exist anywhere.

Well, then, you are obviously wrong, aren't you?

The rights of private property, for example, have existed since the dawn of man at the very least in one code of law or another. For examples, they exist in natural law, Hammurabi law, Mosaic Law, Roman Law, Grecian Law, common law, constitutional law, case law. . . .

What else are you wrong about?

So how much property does everyone have a natural right to ?

Finders keepers...

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are confusing the term natural rights, with morals, and the laws of nature.

See above definition of natural rights.

I'm sorry, but why are you on this thread if you don't even know what the object of the discussion--ontologically, epistemologically, historically and empirically--is?
.
While dilloduck's talk that natural morality is not absolute or absolutely binding in terms of real-world, human conduct and interaction, insofar as he understands that natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are in fact the stuff of natural morality, he's absolutely correct. That is precisely what the imperatives of natural law are in the historical exegesis of them, and that is an academically and empirically demonstrable fact of history.

Jesus, Joseph, Mary!

Natural law = natural morality; natural morality = natural law. The terms are synonymously identical, synonymously interchangeable. What is meant by natural law is natural morality; what is meant by natural morality is natural law. Same thing. LOL! You don't know what you're talking about.

Further, the term laws of nature refers to the physical laws of nature, the stuff of physics and chemistry, for crying out loud! Natural law refers to . . . well, you know, duh, natural morality.

Morality makes it sound so religious tho.

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

Stop it. I know precisely what the essence of natural law and the inalienable natural rights thereof are.

No. There is no we here. There is only you relativists making baby talk. You're not looking for anything.

All you're saying is that it is . . . wait for it . . . self-evident that natural rights do not exist.

And what is the underlying substance or the metaphysical presupposition of your putatively self-evident baby talk: There are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false, isn't it?

As you very well know, all of the objections raised by you relativists have not only been answered but utterly demolished. Clearly, as I have shown, your premise is irrational . . . so the rest is academic. The only thing you relativists are going on about is the stuff of semantics, nothing of any ontological significance whatsoever. Further, the only ones around here prattling about obscure abstractions and esoteric conundrums is you relativists.

Nothing you say makes any sense at all. It's sheer irrationalism.

You laymen don't even know what relativism is in the classical sense of philosophy. Let me help you: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[dilloduck]

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

While one might think the right to life is a natural right, said right was taken from us in the 14th Amendment when Due Process as determined by the tyranny of the majority.

So as you say ... it may be that all of our Natural rights have been taken already. Perhaps to be taken back by us or our children at some future point. Rise o Phoenix... Rise!

no worries----we never had any natural rights in the first place. If we had any they would be the same as what some bird or fish has.

 

[RKMBrown]

We're looking for stuff like... it's Man's right to live.. as opposed to something such as
Thou shalt not kill.

While one might think the right to life is a natural right, said right was taken from us in the 14th Amendment when Due Process as determined by the tyranny of the majority.

So as you say ... it may be that all of our Natural rights have been taken already. Perhaps to be taken back by us or our children at some future point. Rise o Phoenix... Rise!

no worries----we never had any natural rights in the first place. If we had any they would be the same as what some bird or fish has.

Fish and Birds have more clearly defined rights in this country than the people do.