Treated as such by our federal government.. yes.
Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?
- Thread starter Listening
- Start date
Treated as such by our federal government.. yes.
dilloduck
Diamond Member
Too bad that over the years our govt has proven that those rights can be easily interpreted and legislated away from us. So much for that inalienable stuff. Maybe that's why people are looking for natural ones.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
I agree. Human beings can do whatever they please insofar as the thing they please to do is within their power to do it, and, yes, human beings may do any such thing in spite of the existence of any rights. Human beings do that all the time, mostly due to ignorance or fear. We do what we do by nature. We do what we are by nature. Natural law doesn't deny any of these things in the above. These are the very things that it asserts.
So, why do you say poppycock?
Do you believe the above or not?
What is this about my purpose? What is my purpose according to you? Your knowledge regarding my alleged purpose is not in evidence.
dilloduck
Diamond Member
sorry--didn't mean to accuse you personally. I'm merely assuming that is what the agenda is in trying to take the next step and call what occurs naturally a " right". Rights are similar to licenses or permission slips. Someone gives them to you. In nature there is no need to have the right to do anything.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
You also used your claim that IBM had the majority of the market they never had to argue that they split off Microsoft/Windows in order to avoid being broken up like Ma Bell. There are two minor problems with that claim.
IBM never had a majority of the market because their PCs were overpriced and easy to copy, hence the abundance of PC clones that flooded the market. FYI, at one time, Radio Shack was actually a major player in the PC market.
The second major problem with that is they never owned Microsoft/Windows.
Last edited:
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
There is only one economy.
Well I would put my definition of liberty up against yours for consideration by any responsible panel to judge since I in no way justified authoritarianism in any sense other than government securing our rights. But oh well. . . carry on. Not that you wouldn't anyway.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
I have asked this multiple times in this thread, and not a single person has even bothered to admit that I made the challenge. If rights only come from the government, show me a single example of the government, any government, ever giving someone life.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
I am pretty sure you don't know what he meant.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
What part of the actual essence of the following confused you?
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
You're going on about political machinations, when the only thing I'm talking about is the contents and the history of Natural law.
Last edited:
Lies. I never said a single thing you say I said. Are you entirely incapable of discussion without making up lies in every single sentence?
IBM created the IBM PC market to stave off the feds. The market share I was talking about was for the total computing market, not the PC market which at the time was minuscule. The open standard for the IBM PCs, Microsoft as the OS company, and Intel as the CPU company were chosen to stave off the government splitting IBM up. IBM PCs were easy to copy because IBM published how to copy it, and assisted the other manufacturers in doing so. I'm fully aware that Radio Shack, Commodore, heath kit, and a plethora of others used to sell PC that were based on other architectures.
Last edited:
Giving away our liberty to secure some measure of security. Where have I heard that before?
Ah.. well then get back onto the OP.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sorry for the length of this post, but it, along with the links provided, sums up everything I've argued in one place, answers your concerns, accordingly, long the way, ties up a few loose ends, and encapsulates all of the fundamental principles and themes of natural law.
But when you say that we don't know much about the topic, you mean that science has just scratched the surface of a very complex matter. God's word tells us the whole story and divulges the fact that we are created in His image.
Now bear with me. For we need not debate the actualities of the transcendent realm of being to which the immanent realm of being is contingent, as one need not appeal to the existence of God, for example, in order to immediately demonstrate the actuality of natural rights, their character or the fact that they are absolute and inherently universal. That the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are absolute and universal is self-evident, and it is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law proper on which this was nation founded: the classical liberalism extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-ChristianityÂ’s ethical system of thought.
(See link: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.)
Those who pooh-pooh the observation that America was ultimately founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity simply don't know the history of the development of natural law proper. The tradition of natural law of this nation's founding begins in earnest with Augustine of the Third Century, though it's adumbrations may be traced back to the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century. As handed down to us, its culmination is that which is propounded, principally, by Locke in his Two Treatises of Civil Government and by Sidney in his Discourses Concerning Government in which the ontological justification for natural law proper is predicated on the biblical imperatives concerning the ultimate Origin of natural morality and rights, and those of human conduct and human interaction.
(Never forget, however, that the imperatives of natural morality and natural rights have been recognized and expressed since the dawn of man, albeit, under variously different terms: the stuff of mere semantics, not the stuff of any ontological difference. Given the fact that the substance of these motifs is absolute and universal, this shouldnÂ’t surprise anybody.)
Some think to make much ado over nothing, really, by pointing out that many of the Founders were Deists, followed by the non sequitur of historical ignorance that America, therefore, was not founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity. On the other hand, others carelessly claim with no caveat anywhere in sight that America is a Christian nation, which may be construed to mean something that is false. The sense in which America is a Christian nation goes to the sociopolitical principles of its founding ethos and to the pertinent concerns of liberty exerted against its government. These principles are ultimately derived from scripture; and in accordance with God's perfect will, scripture eschews the supposed divine right of kings and theocracy, as the trappings of such invariably conspire against the exigencies of free will and those of the proper relationship between God and man, or, if you prefer, between the convictions of one's conscience and the behavioral expressions thereof, relative to the prerogatives of free-association and private property as informed by the construct of individual liberty, not by any construct asserted by collectivists.
Hence, we have the essential powers of government—executive, legislative, judicial—distinguished by Augustine, separated via a system of checks and balances by Montesquieu, explicitly limited via the terms of the social contract by Locke, Sidney and others. The latter also entails the necessity of separating church and state, and the peoples' inalienable right of revolt in order to put down the despotic trappings of monarchy and/or theocracy in whatever guise they may persist or arise. Those who claim that the principle of the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution are mistaken. It most certainly is. What they're reacting to is the Jacobins'/Marxists' (that old society of friends and fellow travelers of the "progressive" way) bastardized application of it in case law.
(For example, the leftist Warren Court intentionally turned the principle on its head, effectively making the public education system the state's "church" and making secular humanism it's "religion." See link: Prufrock's Lair: Revisions and Divisions.)
Aside from the affirmation that God (or the Creator in the Declaration of Independence), not the State, is the ultimate Origin and Guarantor of human rights, the sociopolitical principles on which this nation was founded have nothing to do with the mystical aspects of Judeo-Christianity's theology, but with the sociopolitical ramifications of its moral teachings, which both the Christian and the Deist of the time embraced. Hence, so much for the red herring routinely asserted by atheists, in particular, and leftists, in general.
Now, the reason I expound the historical and ideological background of our nation's founding here, as I anticipate the typical objections of ignorance, is to illustrate the reason one must always bear in mind Who the ultimate Benefactor of our natural rights is while demonstrating the cogency of their rational and empirical proofs from nature, sweep away the irrelevancies argued by some that obscure the actualities of the matter, and demonstrate the actual nature of certain, remedial prescriptions that would treat imaginary problems to no avail, but would undermine liberty.
You continue:
Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with these observations. However, a couple of points:
(1) While the fact of the inherent, universal imperatives of natural morality by themselves do not ensure our obeisance due to the exigencies of free will, the person who fails to act on them will not escape the natural repercussions of violating them as they act on him. We have all violated them and felt the sting. Those of us who aren't sociopaths/psychopaths care a great deal about these repercussions or should, for the sake of our own best interests . . . with an empathetic heart for the interests of others.
The imperatives of natural law regarding human conduct and human interaction are God's system of checks and balances woven into the fabric of nature. Ultimately, they are the essence of the defensive counterforce exerted by God against the violations of His inherent rights and the prerogatives of His authority. Whether you believe it to be true or not, violate another's rights and you have violated God's property. Bear in mind that there are rewards to be reaped by those who observe them, too.
(2) And that's why the historically significant proponents of natural law do not formally equate natural rights to mere abilities or talk about the supposed evidence of them in terms of ability. Instead, they are understood to be, respectively, the inherent or natural attributes of sentient beings, as only sentient beings can apprehend them or grant rights of any kind. Humans, for example can and do grant rights; albeit, these are not the natural rights of man, obviously, but the abstract, political rights or the civil rights/protections administered by government. These are the theoretical, social constructs of political science that the relativists on this thread incessantly harp about.
The corollary here is that humans beings should not grant rights to mere animals, as such foolishness undermines the liberty of human beings. Animals are recourses or property.
On the other hand, the civil liberties of the Bill of Rights are the inalienable natural rights of man asserted by the people against the government as translated from the state of nature into the conventions of the state of civil government, and, by the way, the fundamental political rights of the franchise and representation, for example, are the practical means by which the unabrigable civil liberties are peacefully maintained relative to the mutual bonds of the social contract. These are of the first order. The other civil rights/protections are nonessential privileges, though beneficial insofar as they are reasonable.
Again:
(1) Well, yes, as we present them in natural terms, that's true. However, they are spiritually intrinsic as well. But let's concentrate on the level of their being on which we agree, though my approach in this instance may at first blush seem to be counterintuitive to that goal.
Here I wish to further underscore the importance of bearing in mind the Persons by Whom they are ultimately endowed while illustrating their actuality in nature. Given the incontrovertible fact that they are universally inherent to the nature of sentient beings, the fundamental, innate rights of man, obviously, are not derived from government, but neither can they be transferred to another nor even taken by another as some have suggested. They are that absolute.
For this reason, I consistently express their actuality in terms of the mutual obligations of morality with the dichotomic correlates of light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions and initial force-defensive force in mind. (Some may recognize these correlates as expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in some rhetorical flourish or another, but they do not originate with him.) Hence, natural rights are not inalienable in the sense that they cannot (ability) be violated or suppressed; they're inalienable in the sense that they may not (consent) be violated or suppressed without dire consequences, including the use of deadly counterforce. This rendering of the matter entails the understanding that they cannot be transferred to another or taken by another.
As I have observed in other posts, discussing natural rights in terms of ability implies that they are subject to being negated by the whims of other natural agents. But there exists only one Agent Who can terminate them, the same Agent Who endowed them in the first place. Further, given that God is the Author of natural law and the God of nature, given that He is the ultimate Source and Guarantor of human rights: even equating rights to the seemingly benign abilities of thought and expression is foolhardy, for innate rights cease to be rights of any kind at the point where one's rights end and another's rights begin. While one can never violate the natural rights of another human being and, only under relatively rare circumstances, the civil rights of another human being with mere thoughts or expressions, one may quite readily violate the inherent rights of God with one's thoughts and expressions. We humans do it all the time.
(2) We are not alone, and just as the sentient creatures of nature precede and command the trappings of government, wisely or unwisely, God precedes and commands the very existence of nature itself, which is utterly contingent to His power and authority. A human being, or, for that matter, any natural entity, sentient or inanimate, may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that does not transfer my rights to another. A natural entity may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that takes neither my life nor my rights away. Ultimately, I'm an eternal being comprised of a spiritual substance. My life and my rights stay with me wherever I go.
No human being in the natural realm can kill my body, physically oppress me or steal my property, except God allow it; and should He allow it, now argued strictly in the terms of nature as promised, my life is not transferred to another, my basic liberties (commonly, though informally in all but the constitutional language of civil liberties, referred to as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement, which are not freedoms proper, but the inherently fundamental attributes/liberties of sentient beings) remain intact via my rational faculties, and the nonnegotiable asset of my property is me, my own self.
None of the natural rights of man are derived from government; they cannot be transferred to another or taken away by another.
(The Explicit Natural Rights of Man: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367.)
As for criminals, killed or incarcerated for perpetrating serious transgressions against an individual or the body politic, their just due is exacted on them via the defensive counterforce of the same, respectively. But as I've shown, even that does not extinguish their natural rights, though it does severely limit their expression. Also, in many states, they may never be able to keep and bear arms again, which is merely a continuation of the same instance of justice meted out as a result of their violation(s) of natural law. Repercussions. But no one ever loses one's right of self-defense.
In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or the legitimate political/civil rights of others.
Again:
(1) But one need not be a scholar of natural law in order to understand its fundamental realities: everybody knows it's wrong to murder another, to oppress another or to steal from another, if for no other reason but the fact that nobody would that anybody else do any of these things to them. There's nothing especially abstract about that, and the only sense in which natural rights are significantly abstract goes to their expression. Sure. But the expression of these rights is effortless for a sentient being, for the essence of their expression goes to what a sentient being is and what a sentient being does by its very nature.
(2) Now, finally, your thought regarding economic rights and the like: what you're asserting constitutes the violation of natural rights.
Marxist Sociopolitical and Economic Theory 101.
We already have more than enough of that going on right now—thank you very much, but no thank you—and the crony capitalism thereof is strangling the life blood out of small business interests and the working poor, just for starters. . . .
What your prescribing is the very cause of the ills and depredations you're complaining about, including your concerns about the environment. Repercussions. In fact, what you're prescribing is a futile attempt to ameliorate the deprivations caused by the very same—a vicious cycle of envy, avarice, fear, theft, sloth, dependency . . . ad nauseam; links in the growing chain of the tyranny that binds us, forged by the peoples' lack of self-control and self-provision. See my signature. The endless parade of bread and circuses . . . well, until the money runs out. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, a.k.a., spiraling spending and debt. Wealth redistribution, which only serves to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, as it effects an overall decline in the wealth of the nation as a whole. Not at all what progressives predict according to the zero-sum gain fantasy. Lose is the word of the day!
Yeehaw!
The former Soviet Union, the communist Republic of China under Moa, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under that line of congenital psychopaths, Cuba under Castro (Isn't he dead yet?), Venezuela under Chavez. . . .
Here's my motto for Marx: From thieves according to their sins, to each according to his sweat.
But when you say that we don't know much about the topic, you mean that science has just scratched the surface of a very complex matter. God's word tells us the whole story and divulges the fact that we are created in His image.
Now bear with me. For we need not debate the actualities of the transcendent realm of being to which the immanent realm of being is contingent, as one need not appeal to the existence of God, for example, in order to immediately demonstrate the actuality of natural rights, their character or the fact that they are absolute and inherently universal. That the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and moral decision are absolute and universal is self-evident, and it is the Anglo-American tradition of natural law proper on which this was nation founded: the classical liberalism extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-ChristianityÂ’s ethical system of thought.
(See link: Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 62 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.)
Those who pooh-pooh the observation that America was ultimately founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity simply don't know the history of the development of natural law proper. The tradition of natural law of this nation's founding begins in earnest with Augustine of the Third Century, though it's adumbrations may be traced back to the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century. As handed down to us, its culmination is that which is propounded, principally, by Locke in his Two Treatises of Civil Government and by Sidney in his Discourses Concerning Government in which the ontological justification for natural law proper is predicated on the biblical imperatives concerning the ultimate Origin of natural morality and rights, and those of human conduct and human interaction.
(Never forget, however, that the imperatives of natural morality and natural rights have been recognized and expressed since the dawn of man, albeit, under variously different terms: the stuff of mere semantics, not the stuff of any ontological difference. Given the fact that the substance of these motifs is absolute and universal, this shouldnÂ’t surprise anybody.)
Some think to make much ado over nothing, really, by pointing out that many of the Founders were Deists, followed by the non sequitur of historical ignorance that America, therefore, was not founded on the principles of Judeo-Christianity. On the other hand, others carelessly claim with no caveat anywhere in sight that America is a Christian nation, which may be construed to mean something that is false. The sense in which America is a Christian nation goes to the sociopolitical principles of its founding ethos and to the pertinent concerns of liberty exerted against its government. These principles are ultimately derived from scripture; and in accordance with God's perfect will, scripture eschews the supposed divine right of kings and theocracy, as the trappings of such invariably conspire against the exigencies of free will and those of the proper relationship between God and man, or, if you prefer, between the convictions of one's conscience and the behavioral expressions thereof, relative to the prerogatives of free-association and private property as informed by the construct of individual liberty, not by any construct asserted by collectivists.
Hence, we have the essential powers of government—executive, legislative, judicial—distinguished by Augustine, separated via a system of checks and balances by Montesquieu, explicitly limited via the terms of the social contract by Locke, Sidney and others. The latter also entails the necessity of separating church and state, and the peoples' inalienable right of revolt in order to put down the despotic trappings of monarchy and/or theocracy in whatever guise they may persist or arise. Those who claim that the principle of the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution are mistaken. It most certainly is. What they're reacting to is the Jacobins'/Marxists' (that old society of friends and fellow travelers of the "progressive" way) bastardized application of it in case law.
(For example, the leftist Warren Court intentionally turned the principle on its head, effectively making the public education system the state's "church" and making secular humanism it's "religion." See link: Prufrock's Lair: Revisions and Divisions.)
Aside from the affirmation that God (or the Creator in the Declaration of Independence), not the State, is the ultimate Origin and Guarantor of human rights, the sociopolitical principles on which this nation was founded have nothing to do with the mystical aspects of Judeo-Christianity's theology, but with the sociopolitical ramifications of its moral teachings, which both the Christian and the Deist of the time embraced. Hence, so much for the red herring routinely asserted by atheists, in particular, and leftists, in general.
Now, the reason I expound the historical and ideological background of our nation's founding here, as I anticipate the typical objections of ignorance, is to illustrate the reason one must always bear in mind Who the ultimate Benefactor of our natural rights is while demonstrating the cogency of their rational and empirical proofs from nature, sweep away the irrelevancies argued by some that obscure the actualities of the matter, and demonstrate the actual nature of certain, remedial prescriptions that would treat imaginary problems to no avail, but would undermine liberty.
You continue:
Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with these observations. However, a couple of points:
(1) While the fact of the inherent, universal imperatives of natural morality by themselves do not ensure our obeisance due to the exigencies of free will, the person who fails to act on them will not escape the natural repercussions of violating them as they act on him. We have all violated them and felt the sting. Those of us who aren't sociopaths/psychopaths care a great deal about these repercussions or should, for the sake of our own best interests . . . with an empathetic heart for the interests of others.
The imperatives of natural law regarding human conduct and human interaction are God's system of checks and balances woven into the fabric of nature. Ultimately, they are the essence of the defensive counterforce exerted by God against the violations of His inherent rights and the prerogatives of His authority. Whether you believe it to be true or not, violate another's rights and you have violated God's property. Bear in mind that there are rewards to be reaped by those who observe them, too.
(2) And that's why the historically significant proponents of natural law do not formally equate natural rights to mere abilities or talk about the supposed evidence of them in terms of ability. Instead, they are understood to be, respectively, the inherent or natural attributes of sentient beings, as only sentient beings can apprehend them or grant rights of any kind. Humans, for example can and do grant rights; albeit, these are not the natural rights of man, obviously, but the abstract, political rights or the civil rights/protections administered by government. These are the theoretical, social constructs of political science that the relativists on this thread incessantly harp about.
The corollary here is that humans beings should not grant rights to mere animals, as such foolishness undermines the liberty of human beings. Animals are recourses or property.
On the other hand, the civil liberties of the Bill of Rights are the inalienable natural rights of man asserted by the people against the government as translated from the state of nature into the conventions of the state of civil government, and, by the way, the fundamental political rights of the franchise and representation, for example, are the practical means by which the unabrigable civil liberties are peacefully maintained relative to the mutual bonds of the social contract. These are of the first order. The other civil rights/protections are nonessential privileges, though beneficial insofar as they are reasonable.
Again:
(1) Well, yes, as we present them in natural terms, that's true. However, they are spiritually intrinsic as well. But let's concentrate on the level of their being on which we agree, though my approach in this instance may at first blush seem to be counterintuitive to that goal.
Here I wish to further underscore the importance of bearing in mind the Persons by Whom they are ultimately endowed while illustrating their actuality in nature. Given the incontrovertible fact that they are universally inherent to the nature of sentient beings, the fundamental, innate rights of man, obviously, are not derived from government, but neither can they be transferred to another nor even taken by another as some have suggested. They are that absolute.
For this reason, I consistently express their actuality in terms of the mutual obligations of morality with the dichotomic correlates of light and transient transgressions-prolonged and existential transgressions and initial force-defensive force in mind. (Some may recognize these correlates as expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in some rhetorical flourish or another, but they do not originate with him.) Hence, natural rights are not inalienable in the sense that they cannot (ability) be violated or suppressed; they're inalienable in the sense that they may not (consent) be violated or suppressed without dire consequences, including the use of deadly counterforce. This rendering of the matter entails the understanding that they cannot be transferred to another or taken by another.
As I have observed in other posts, discussing natural rights in terms of ability implies that they are subject to being negated by the whims of other natural agents. But there exists only one Agent Who can terminate them, the same Agent Who endowed them in the first place. Further, given that God is the Author of natural law and the God of nature, given that He is the ultimate Source and Guarantor of human rights: even equating rights to the seemingly benign abilities of thought and expression is foolhardy, for innate rights cease to be rights of any kind at the point where one's rights end and another's rights begin. While one can never violate the natural rights of another human being and, only under relatively rare circumstances, the civil rights of another human being with mere thoughts or expressions, one may quite readily violate the inherent rights of God with one's thoughts and expressions. We humans do it all the time.
(2) We are not alone, and just as the sentient creatures of nature precede and command the trappings of government, wisely or unwisely, God precedes and commands the very existence of nature itself, which is utterly contingent to His power and authority. A human being, or, for that matter, any natural entity, sentient or inanimate, may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that does not transfer my rights to another. A natural entity may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that takes neither my life nor my rights away. Ultimately, I'm an eternal being comprised of a spiritual substance. My life and my rights stay with me wherever I go.
No human being in the natural realm can kill my body, physically oppress me or steal my property, except God allow it; and should He allow it, now argued strictly in the terms of nature as promised, my life is not transferred to another, my basic liberties (commonly, though informally in all but the constitutional language of civil liberties, referred to as the freedom of religion/ideology, the freedom of expression and the freedom of movement, which are not freedoms proper, but the inherently fundamental attributes/liberties of sentient beings) remain intact via my rational faculties, and the nonnegotiable asset of my property is me, my own self.
None of the natural rights of man are derived from government; they cannot be transferred to another or taken away by another.
(The Explicit Natural Rights of Man: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367.)
As for criminals, killed or incarcerated for perpetrating serious transgressions against an individual or the body politic, their just due is exacted on them via the defensive counterforce of the same, respectively. But as I've shown, even that does not extinguish their natural rights, though it does severely limit their expression. Also, in many states, they may never be able to keep and bear arms again, which is merely a continuation of the same instance of justice meted out as a result of their violation(s) of natural law. Repercussions. But no one ever loses one's right of self-defense.
In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or the legitimate political/civil rights of others.
Again:
(1) But one need not be a scholar of natural law in order to understand its fundamental realities: everybody knows it's wrong to murder another, to oppress another or to steal from another, if for no other reason but the fact that nobody would that anybody else do any of these things to them. There's nothing especially abstract about that, and the only sense in which natural rights are significantly abstract goes to their expression. Sure. But the expression of these rights is effortless for a sentient being, for the essence of their expression goes to what a sentient being is and what a sentient being does by its very nature.
(2) Now, finally, your thought regarding economic rights and the like: what you're asserting constitutes the violation of natural rights.
Marxist Sociopolitical and Economic Theory 101.
We already have more than enough of that going on right now—thank you very much, but no thank you—and the crony capitalism thereof is strangling the life blood out of small business interests and the working poor, just for starters. . . .
What your prescribing is the very cause of the ills and depredations you're complaining about, including your concerns about the environment. Repercussions. In fact, what you're prescribing is a futile attempt to ameliorate the deprivations caused by the very same—a vicious cycle of envy, avarice, fear, theft, sloth, dependency . . . ad nauseam; links in the growing chain of the tyranny that binds us, forged by the peoples' lack of self-control and self-provision. See my signature. The endless parade of bread and circuses . . . well, until the money runs out. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, a.k.a., spiraling spending and debt. Wealth redistribution, which only serves to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, as it effects an overall decline in the wealth of the nation as a whole. Not at all what progressives predict according to the zero-sum gain fantasy. Lose is the word of the day!
Yeehaw!
The former Soviet Union, the communist Republic of China under Moa, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under that line of congenital psychopaths, Cuba under Castro (Isn't he dead yet?), Venezuela under Chavez. . . .
Here's my motto for Marx: From thieves according to their sins, to each according to his sweat.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
Life is not a right. It is a miracle of nature.
Last edited:
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
And?
Asclepias
Diamond Member
And governments dont give birth to humans.
gnarlylove
Senior Member
Karma may be true but humans do not have the cognitive capacity to produce sufficient evidence for rational belief in karma. So I stand by the assertion and logical premise that karma is magic/supernatural in the sense that it may be true we just don't have sufficient evidence like we do with natural selection.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Actually, a handful of us have addressed the matter from top to bottom. No need to move on to anything new. It's all been said and done already. In the above you alleged that natural law and the obvious realities of things were incongruent. How's that? We're talking about natural law, not civil law. The latter is the stuff of rights akin to licenses and such.
Natural rights are. Period. Correct. You don't have to do anything to have them, but be born. They are the stuff of the inherent attributes and subsequent expressions of sentient beings. They are nothing less than that or anything other than that. The rest is semantics. That's why there's no such thing as a permission slip, as it were, to violate them without dire consequences, up to and including the use of deadly counterforce.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
None of your rights are granted by the government.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
Disagree?
Cite the text that grants you the right to free speech.
Similar threads
- Poll
