Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

Is that the burr under your saddle? That some folks way back then chose to believe that natural rights are God given? That some believe that now? And THAT is why you are straining at every gnat on the planet (metaphorically speaking) to deny that such natural rights exist?

What if the term "God given" had never been coined? That nobody had linked God to such unalienable or natural rights? Actually most of those great philosophers who first noted the concept did not refer to such rights as "God given". They concluded that such exists, however, based purely on empircal evidence, observation, rational thought, and common sense. The concept that certain things exist regardless of how we perceive or use or define them.

There's really no strain to this. It's just me hanging in here with the discussion like everyone else. Look--if someone claims something exists it is up to them to prove the fact.
No one has. There is no evidence to prove that there are natural or God given rights other than assertions. Man struggles to understand and label. It keeps him from being afraid. What life does naturally is not a right by any stretch of the imagination. It is what it does.

I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists. Proof that all planets rotate around suns. Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.

Prove to me that love exists. That hate exists. That hope exists. That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.

Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing. We accept that they exist because they are.

Because something else exists does not mean natural rights exist. What is the rational reason for unicorns not existing ? If you don't have one then I guess they exist ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

gnarlylove:

Also, Asclepias and others, for your edification as well. . . .

Why the Natural Rights of Man are Absolute

Recall, gnarlylove, you wrote:

So these natural rights are universal among the human species and do not exist outside the human species. [1] Thus, if we died, so does natural rights as we present them. I guess this was the gist of my "they aren't intrinsic" bit. I don't know if this contradicts or supports your belief but it seems axiomatic, really, once we understand natural rights for what they are. A highly useful description in our current age, even a "true" description, [2] but one that does not extend beyond the human species or into the metaphysical realm we so often wish to ascribe such rights and "truths."

Edited excerpt of my response:

(1) Well, yes, as we present them in natural terms, that's true; for the deceased their existence ends . . . in the natural realm of being. But given that they are universally inherent to human nature, they are universally intrinsic to human nature. Right? 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 counterproductive to that goal.

. . . Here I wish to further underscore the importance of bearing in mind the Persons (Trinity) by Whom they (three) 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. . . . 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, up to and 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 mere 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 . . . with mere thoughts or expressions, one may quite readily violate the inherent rights of God with one's thoughts and expressions.

Ability is not the essence of rights.

(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. . . . A human being may kill my body in the natural realm of being, but that does not transfer my rights to him or to anyone else. He does not TAKE my rights away from me and go to Timbuktu with them. He does not TAKE my life either. People! Metaphor! No one actually takes another person's life or rights away in any literal sense.

Where does he put this life and these rights that he supposedly takes? In his pocket?

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.

Don't get hung up on that. That's just something to think about. I've already shown that in the natural without having to appeal to God's existence that no human being literally takes one's life or rights away by killing one.

No human being in the natural realm can kill my body, physically oppress me or steal my property in the first place, 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 should one kill me, my basic liberties . . . remain intact via my rational faculties should one physically overwhelm and oppress me, and the nonnegotiable asset of my property is me, my own self should one steal from me.

What? Stealing my watch, for example, steals my rights?

People!

. . . 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.

. . . 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.

My following posts are going to hammer each point home in an increasingly concrete way. There will be no room for doubt about why and how they are absolute.

 

[KokomoJojo]

lets start from the beginning..... what are the elements of a 'right'?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

gnarlylove:

Also, Asclepias, for you edification as well. . . .

More on why the Natural Rights of Man are Absolutely Inalienable even under the Duress of Oppression or Incarceration for those who failed to extrapolate the finer nuances of the matter the first time around


First, what are they precisely:

The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature be but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

__________________________________________

Now, some of you, no doubt, will wonder about the term freedom and movement because you don't know the history or the language of natural law, and have never thought things through, like gnarlylove, who imagines that an oppressed or incarcerated person losses his natural rights, despite my incontrovertible argument to the contrary and as if any mere human being could transfer these things to another in death or terminate these things of another in life.

(1) The use of the term freedom in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term civil liberty, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature. They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be. The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement: the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.

(2) The only sense in which a sentient being stops moving under duress is geographically: due to oppression proper or criminal incarceration. No sentient being actually stops moving in nature—either intellectually or even physically—as long as it's alive. Hence, the actual essence of human liberty is inalienable. Presumably, all of you grasp why this is so in the intellectual sense. If you don't grasp why this is so in the physical sense—given the empirical facts of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry—your name is gnarlylove.

Also, because human beings are sentient, they are not entirely bound by the artificial constraints on the freedom of movement that may be exerted by man. We remain free to travel to other places and things in our minds. I know that some of you are hopping up and down right now on one pretext or the other, but before you bounce right out of you minds, consider the fact that we are not bound by instinct as other natural creatures, but equipped with free will. So it is not unreasonable to think of the constraints exerted by man, though he be part of nature, as being artificial in the sense of that factor. No human being happily or, even willingly on the inside, submits to physical restraint, whether he be a law-abiding citizen or not.

Feel free to quibble over the sentient being's rational mode of travel if you must. But before you do, read on.

Under the duress of oppression, all sentient beings retain the inalienable right of revolt as long as they are alive. Don't tell me that one cannot rise up against injustice perpetrated by the state or even overthrow the same. It happens all the time.

Under the duress of incarceration for criminality, one does not lose the inherent right of self-defense, as some have suggested, in any historical rendition of natural morality or as a result of a statute in any code of law or in any judicial decree that has ever existed. (Read that last sentence again very carefully.) Oppression might be afoot, but the inherent right remains.

In any event, there is no such thing as an inalienable right to violate the inalienable rights or legitimate civil/political rights of others!

The pertinent fact of reality that flies right over the head of some is that the duly convicted criminal is under the thumb of the inalienable right of defensive counterforce. Unless a criminal be executed for a capital offence(s), in which case, neither his life nor his rights are transferred, the only sense in which his natural rights are affected, goes to the artificial, albeit, just means of restrain. His natural rights are not terminated as any person with an IQ above that of a gnat might see should that person stop for a moment, arrest his renegade logic and think . . . instead of mindlessly reacting.

That's why we need the fence. The inherent attribute or desire to flee remains.

Further, no incarcerated person is beyond the pale of the due process of law in the form of exoneration or pardon, and does not fail to reassert the unchanneled or overt expressions of his natural rights once released from the constraints of his sentence.

Why?

Because the essence of his inalienable, natural rights never left him!

Knock, knock, anybody home?

 

[dilloduck]

lets start from the beginning..... what are the elements of a 'right'?

Ownership-----if you have mineral rights you own the minerals.

 

[beagle9]

That rights do not exist. They are man made constructs used to rationalize our ability to think in an abstract manner about more than just basic survival.

Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.

Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.

Why not, otherwise if you chose to type something to yourself, then you have a God given right to do so, and if I were you, I'd let no man ever tell me otherwise. Now if a man takes away your right to type something in thought of unto yourself, then you have been robbed of something that belongs to you, and if you don't think that, then you probably don't actually exist at all. Hec, you may be just a figment of your own imagination.. LOL

 

[dilloduck]

Man made constructs don't exist? By that reasoning scientific laws don't exist, thoughts don't exist, stories don't exist, etc... It seems like an empty claim.

Pardon. It gets tedious typing "without the presence of man". Rights do not exist without man.

Why not, otherwise if you chose to type something to yourself, then you have a God given right to do so, and if I were you, I'd let no man ever tell me otherwise. Now if a man takes away your right to type something in thought of unto yourself, then you have been robbed of something that belongs to you, and if you don't think that, then you probably don't actually exist at all. Hec, you may be just a figment of your own imagination.. LOL

Is the right to type to myself unalienable ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

gnarlylove:

Also, Asclepias, for you edification as well. . . .

The Most Fundamental Aspects of the Human Liberties: the second category of the inalienable, natural rights of man

Bear in mind what the natural rights are, the three categories:

The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature be but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

__________________________________________

The universal essence of the inalienable, natural liberties of man are Belief, Expression and Movement: the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of human beings, who are the only sentient animals in nature on Earth.

Now, why am I using the term sentient animal in this instance? Because sentient being, which is fine in virtually all of the other contexts of this issue, and sentient creature have broader connotations that in this instance are not relevant. The term being in the context of sentience alone is too broadly generic, and would include the ultimate sentience of existence. (Please, let's not get into the theological quibbles of Potential-Actual. They're not relevant!). The term creature in the context of sentience implies a Creator. In other words, I need not appeal to God in order to demonstrate what the substance (composition) of the natural rights of man (the naturally occurring, inherent attributes and expressions of sentient animals ) is at the material level of being either.

However, the term being is fine with the term human in front of it, i.e., the only kind of sentient animal in nature on Earth. The reason I went through all that rather than cutting to the chase is because many of you confuse yourselves and jump to conclusions before pausing, thinking, gasping.

Foundation. Expounded. Extrapolated. Distilled. What is the thing's essence? What is it, really? What is pertinent? What is relevant? No excuses. Move on!

The composition of the natural rights of man (Belief, Expression and Movement) are, of course, natural; therefore, they are concrete, material, tangible, empirical . . . just as the imperatives of natural law (or natural morality) are, ultimately, in terms of the readily apparent and demonstrable actualities of human conduct and human interaction in extant reality and history. (Materialists: I know that the State and Science are your gods; so don't waste our time quibbling over the term history either, e.g., paleontological and archeological artifacts. Empirical! Got it?)

Those who would claim that the composition of the human being's interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions—Belief, Expression and Movement—at the most basic level of their being in nature are not discernibly or demonstrably concrete, material, tangible, empirical . . . are as wrong as they can be.

Obviously, as one who believes in the existence of an eternally existent and, therefore, self-subsistent transcendence, the ultimate Source of our rights, I do not hold to the scientifically unfalsifiable meanderings of materialism proper; and we need not quibble over the scientifically unfalsifible, albeit, rationally cogent concerns of theology. These things are not immediately relevant.

I've already expounded the enduring anatomical, physiological and biochemical facts of the liberty of Movement at its most basic level of being in nature as they relate to the attributes and expressions (generic) of sentience. But that is not the full story about this liberty, though I did allude to the rest of the story. I indirectly touched on the higher aspects of these enduring facts, namely, the human being's rational mode of travel.

But it's the impertinence—the temerity!—of the prospect that there be a material composition for the liberties of Belief and Expression that's got many of you jumping up and down. But there's nothing mysterious or especially difficult to see about any of this, and the following entails the higher aspects of the Liberty of Movement as well:

The composition of human Belief and Expression at its most basic level of being in nature is the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the human being's neurological system, which, of course, includes the same structures and processes of the brain at the pinnacle: not as a whole as the materialist would have it, but as the sum. The difference between the two, for those who react before thinking, is the difference between that which is metaphysical and that which is quantifiable, respectively.

And here's the thing, the materialist necessarily concedes the ontological actuality of the sum in the assertion of the alleged, ontological actuality of his whole.

*crickets chirping*

Point?

The apparent objections being raised by the naysayers on this thread comes down to the abstractions of semantics and/or those of the sociopolitical constructs of government. Camouflage. It is now manifestly incontrovertible that human nature at its most basic level of being as well as the subsequent attributes and expressions thereof (the material substance of natural rights) ontologically precede the substance of these objections.

That is self-evident!

Hence, the actual objections are something else: the purely metaphysical presuppositions of ontological relativism, epistemological relativism and moral relativism.

What is the thing's essence? What is it, really?
______________________

Now, given the nature of my observations here, some of you might want to cry foul . . . given the fact that I have also argued that man has recognized the imperatives of natural law since he appeared.

How could that be if the pre-scientific philosophers and theologians of antiquity—those who would grapple with these things beyond the instinctual level of understanding in terms of self-preservation and self-interest—knew next to nothing about the actual nuts and bolts of neurological science? In others words, how could they credibly argue that the three categories of the innate rights of man (the right to life, the right to liberty and the right of private property) and the perception of their correlates (murder, oppression and theft) were materially embedded in human nature?

(Threes. Here a three, there a three, everywhere a three three.)

So you think they weren't aware of the Body-Soul dichotomy? Of course they were. They were aware of the Rational-Empirical dichotomy, too! These things and all the other big questions have been pondered and expressed under the guise of innumerable adumbrations for centuries. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, for example, didn't grapple with anything new that the ancients didn't grapple with; the former merely grappled with them in an arguably different way as a result of the development of science proper. Notwithstanding, science, in and of itself, does not and cannot answer the big questions. It merely gives us more information, in terms of both quantity and reliability, to work with.

The fact of the matter is that the ancients held that the pertinent concerns of natural morality and desire, the essence and inclinations of sentience and variously other things, were physiologically embedded in major organs, including the brain, though the ancient Egyptians didn't think much of that one: heart, liver, spleen, stomach, even sexual organs. . . . These were the nexuses between the body and soul: the centers of life itself and the various aspects of sentience pertinent to the unique attributes of humanity and the rights thereof.

The historically reoccurring and universal themes of natural morality are materially inherent!

2 + 2 = 4. It's that simple and that obvious. That's why the ancients believed they had to be physiologically embedded in some way and thusly linked to the soul as well. They were right! at least insofar as the essential truth of the former, if not the latter, objectively speaking, just wrong about the details.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are a couple of problems with it. Lets see...

They all come down to one thing, you refuse to open your mind.

1. Rights (noun) are defined as:

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

If we accept that definition of definitive the key word is or, as in making a choice between two or more things. Since I have already shown that morals exist in nature outside the minds of man, there is a clear argument to be made that natural rights have the same source as morals.

2. That means someone would have to be conscious to grant them to us.

No it doesn't.

3. That also means in additon that someone would need to be conscience to even think these rights up.

Yet you cannot actually demonstrate that man is the source of rights. On the other hand, there are actually morals in nature, despite your insistence that people are the only source of morals.

4. Inalienable is defined as:

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

How is that a problem?

5. All "rights" can be taken by simply killing someone.

Prove it.

6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind. If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?

Even if the theory is incorrect that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of natural rights.

7. natural is defined as

not manmade.

Since rights are not made by man, I don't see that as a problem.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind. If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?

What's your point?

Again, you've been refuted. Read the posts on this, and stop being closed-minded.

Excerpt:

. . . there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

That doesn't work, does it?

Or try this: it is self-evident and absolutely true that human beings can readily prove that two diametrically opposed ideas are both true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. For example, human beings can reckon that a triangle (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and three angles of equal degree) is the same thing as a square (a geometrical figure with three straight sides of equal length and four right angles) at the same time, on the same plane of reference.

But wait a minute!

That doesn't work at all, does it? That's nuts! Human beings, quit obviously, can do no such thing.

How about those absolute laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle that cannot be rationally violated? How about those logical categories of human consciousness that along with the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical calculi) comprise the inherently universal apprehensions of sentient. . . .

. . . Now, are you ready to concede the fact that they are also absolute, at the very least, within the framework of human consciousness and experience . . . whether, objectively speaking, they be backed by any actually existing divinity or not? For let us consider the fact that for all intents and purposes, given that human beings cannot coherently reckon existents or successfully handle them, things both rational and empirical, unless they do so in such a way which in effect amounts to these things being absolute beyond the confines of human consciousness?

*crickets chirping*

The answer is obvious. Indeed, the answer is self-evident.

In the final analysis of things as they are, not as they might be purely as a matter of dogma: human beings cannot and do not live their lives as if the irrationalism of relativism were true regardless of what they might believe to be true . . . ultimately.

You see, the difference between folks like me and relativists: we don't care about the irrelevancies of abstract social constructs and the like, theoretical mumbo jumbo, semantic quibbles over actualities or sophomoric philosophical distinctions over potentialities which make no difference, the womanish stuff of "To be or not to be." That is not the pertinent question!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I will probably be able to prove to you that natural rights exist about the time you can show me proof that gravity exists. Proof that all planets rotate around suns. Proof that black holes exist or something we call the 'big bang' happened.

Prove to me that love exists. That hate exists. That hope exists. That you saw your shadow when you went outside today.

Some things we accept because there is no rational explanation for them not existing. We accept that they exist because they are.

Fox, there's plenty of evidence for natural rights. The proofs of natural law are self-evident. Jefferson wasn't merely waxing poetic.

Interesting----first you claim there is plenty of evidence and then turn around and claim they are self evident. I think Jefferson was using anything he could get his hands on to make sure people thought these rights were important enough to deserve protection

No. What's interesting is that you would think that "plenty of evidence", which goes to extant fact and historical experience in this case, just for starters, would be incongruent with the statement that they are also self-evident.

Here's the fundamental rule of reality with which you and I must contend: the rational forms (mathematical and geometrical calculi) and logical categories (the laws of logic) of human consciousness and moral decision are inherently universal, and they are absolute.

Simple example: what difference would it make to you or me if 2 + 2 weren't 4 beyond the constraints of our minds?

What we look for in terms of reality in everything we do, including science: do the substances and processes of empirical phenomena as observed align with our internal reckoning of them?

What's the apparent difference between the Sun and fairies? The Sun exists in both the empirical and the rational estimation of things. The fairy only exists in the rational . . . or so it seems.

If beyond the constraints of our minds, what is ultimately true is something else in this respect, what difference would that make to us? How could we even know?
______________________

Jefferson? What's Jefferson got to do with it? There's not one idea in the Declaration of Independence that originates with him. Not one! Except of course, arguably, his enumeration of King George's offences, albeit, relative to the principles that precede him by centuries.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There are a couple of problems with it. Lets see...

They all come down to one thing, you refuse to open your mind.

1. Rights (noun) are defined as:

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

If we accept that definition of definitive the key word is or, as in making a choice between two or more things. Since I have already shown that morals exist in nature outside the minds of man, there is a clear argument to be made that natural rights have the same source as morals.



No it doesn't.



Yet you cannot actually demonstrate that man is the source of rights. On the other hand, there are actually morals in nature, despite your insistence that people are the only source of morals.



How is that a problem?



Prove it.

6. Your assertion that the only relevant thing is the nature of the human mind. If thats true whats to keep the concept of natural/inalienable rights from just being an incorrect theory?

Even if the theory is incorrect that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of natural rights.

7. natural is defined as

not manmade.

Since rights are not made by man, I don't see that as a problem.

Asclepias, you've been refuted in detail by me on every point; you've been refuted by Quantum with the quip on every point. If you would think about the essence of your objections relative to the answers you get from Quantum, you could see the realities of the matter for yourself. If you would just read my posts on the same, you would get a helping hand along the way.

It's okay to be wrong, but why do you close your mind and stay that way?

While I believe that God is behind nature and, therefore, is the One who, ultimately, endows our natural rights; one need not argue that some consciousness beyond nature would have to exist in order for us to have them. Why. Can't. You. Grasp. That?

Ironically, that God's point in terms of free will. Notwithstanding, morality is in nature. Violate it's terms and watch what happens. God demonstrates His existence in that fashion . . . not by overpowering your will and making you get real with yourself and others.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Everything you need to know about natural law and natural rights, and the misunderstandings typically alleged by leftists about them. . . .

The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

Note: The use of the term freedom in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term civil liberty, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature. They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be. The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement: the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-71.html#post8902898

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 94 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-87.html#post8910157

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-94.html#post8914725

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-86.html#post8909910

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915369

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915433

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 96 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

___________________________________________________________

Master these things and you will be an expert, not only on natural law, but the way of reality itself.

 

[dilloduck]

Everything you need to know about natural law and natural rights, and the misunderstandings typically alleged by leftists about them. . . .

The Natural Rights of Man in Three Sentences/a Nutshell

The natural rights of man (throughout history, also known as the innate dignities of man, the innate prerogatives of man, the innate entitlements of man . . .) have been explicitly identified and defined since the dawn of man: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of natural rights, have been explicitly identified and defined as well since the dawn of man. And what would be the fundamental liberties of sentient beings in nature but the fundamental attributes and expressions of sentient beings in nature: the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement.

Note: The use of the term freedom in this instance is merely the word used in the idiomatic expressions of the inherent liberties of man, or in the formal expressions of the same relative to the term civil liberty, which is the language of civil government concerning the inherent liberties as translated from the language of the state of nature. They need not be expressed in this manner at all to be. The essence of them are Belief, Expression and Movement: the interrelated and generically inherent attributes and expressions of sentient beings.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-71.html#post8902898

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 94 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-87.html#post8910157

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-94.html#post8914725

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-86.html#post8909910

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915369

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-95.html#post8915433

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 96 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ? - Page 95 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

___________________________________________________________

Master these things and you will be an expert, not only on natural law, but the way of reality itself.

Since the dawn of man ? Really ? What is the earliest evidence that you have where man mentions his "natural rights" ? Aren't you forgetting the divine rights of kings ?

 

[RKMBrown]

Please prove your assertion. How can a right (noun) defined as a moral or legal entitlement exist without man? Those are man made constructs. If all men disappeared from the earth does a fish have a right to jump out of the water? No, it simply has the ability.

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

ROFL to funny.

 

[RKMBrown]

Its not about my eagerness to agree or disagree. its about defining words based on what I see in the dictionary. I redefined nothing. How is that any more whimsical than you insisting it is a right? Who says you are correct other than people, humans just like you and I, that have the same opinion as you do? There is nothing that makes it a right except that a man/woman says so. I agree that a computer does not have the right to contemplate because its not really contemplating nor does it have the power. It is merely following instructions a software programmer gave it and processing data, not contemplating.

Contemplation is a natural right at least because there is no possible way to legislate it away other than to harm the individual. Such as by performing a lobotomy.

Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".

I call it a natural right, because it is. That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.

 

[RKMBrown]

I didn't say it existed without man. I said it existed before man 'made it up' as you put it. In other words, if you see unalienable aka natural aka God given rights as the Founders defined them, humankind had nothing to do with their creation. They exist period. All humankind can do is give them a name and/or recognize and protect them or not. But humankind did not invent them any more than humankind invented love, hate, courage, hope, ambition, or any other human trait. Such things exist whether or not we have names for them or somebody is even aware of them.

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.

No. There is no religious agenda to calling certain rights natural or inalienable. However some people may have a religious agenda to have power over certain rights legal rights that can be given or taken away, such as the legal right to abort babies and the legal right to force people to pay for said abortions.

 

[dilloduck]

Contemplation is a natural right at least because there is no possible way to legislate it away other than to harm the individual. Such as by performing a lobotomy.

Why do you insist on calling it a "right" ? We could contemplate even if we didn't have the so called "right".

I call it a natural right, because it is. That we could contemplate even if we did not have a legal right to do so, is why that natural right is inalienable.

You can't contemplate if you are dead---someone could kill you and you would lose this ability therefore it is not inalienable.

 

[dilloduck]

Where is the proof they existed before man made them up? Assigning say the word courage to a natural event such as a cat fighting off a dog in defense of its kittens is a manmade construct. How do you know the cat feels courage? Why is not simply the natural struggle for survival instinct that is kicking in? Now you hit on something that I need to ask about. What did people observe that made them define these things as rights. If we can answer that question we can provide some proof that rights exist without man defining them.

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.

No. There is no religious agenda to calling certain rights natural or inalienable. However some people may have a religious agenda to have power over certain rights legal rights that can be given or taken away, such as the legal right to abort babies and the legal right to force people to pay for said abortions.

So why do so many Libertarians use the term "Natural Law?" Simply, it gives them the means by which to elevate their opinions, dogmas, and prejudices to a metaphysical level where nobody will dare to criticise or even think about them. The term smacks of religion, where "Natural Law" has replaced "God's Law." The latter fiction gave the priest power over believers. "Natural Law" is designed to give the Libertarian ideologist power over the people that he or she wants to rule.

F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?

 

[dblack]

Like I said----there is an agenda to identifying these so called "natural rights". I suspect one is so that we don't have to call them God given. The other is that once they are indeed verified by some special group of people and codified, no one dare challenge them.

There was definitely an agenda, just as there's an agenda now in the campaign to consider rights as "made up". I actually think that's the more interesting angle in this discussion. The whole point of claiming natural rights was to establish a rationale for basic freedom that didn't depend on the whim of nation-states, whether they be 'democratic' or ruled by the divine right of kings. The agenda to reverse that, to make our rights once again dependent on our rulers, should properly be seen as a threat to human rights, and ultimately authoritarian.