Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

It's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If rights come from people then you must be dependent on people for rights and therefore a slave.
Not at all. You are a free person precisely becaues other people share your belief in rights. That's what gives you rights to begin with. Slavery occurs in societies that do not recognize rights, not those that do.

Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
Who knew!

How could natural rights be established? ZING! You've lost this discussion right there.

Slavery posed a conundrum to the Founders on exactly that basis. Most of them recognized it as wrong but solving the problem presented insurmountable difficulties. And they were right.

They do not require establishment. You were born with them. Hence they are egalitarian. ZING! You just lost the argument right there.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Unfortunately, due to Human Nature these "rights" can not exist without Government. Should the Government cease to exist tomorrow we would all be left at the mercy of well organized gangs . Bloods, Cryps, MS, Hells Angels, Liberals whose members are at the beck and call of their masters.

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .

Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !

Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are. People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .

That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways . It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.

That presumes that this so called gang would only be after me. Which is highly improbable. People will band together when they see that this sort of action is taking place against neighbors, etc. But it does beg the question - since government is a gang that by any standard today, is nothing more than organized crime, why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? I think the answer is equally absurd. Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

Interesting! And here I was under the impression that the western nations, in specific this one, had slavery before the constitution and the establishment of natural rights, as the founders believed them to be.
Who knew!

How could natural rights be established? ZING! You've lost this discussion right there.

Slavery posed a conundrum to the Founders on exactly that basis. Most of them recognized it as wrong but solving the problem presented insurmountable difficulties. And they were right.

They do not require establishment. You were born with them. Hence they are egalitarian. ZING! You just lost the argument right there.

Are you arguing with yourself? You wrote that this society had slavery before the establishment of natural riughts as the Founders believed them. That implies they did not exist before the Founders, which eviscerates your entire argument. So which is it?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

[G.T.]

Government is a gang.



Rights can to exist without government. I have the right to defend myself whether government is there to do it or not. if someone initiates violence against me, it is my right to curb stomp their goofy ass back into the dirt. No government required.

Government is suppose to be the arbitrator. To defend, based on laws that have evolved over 100s of years, the rights/laws of the individual. Our experiment here was simply the first to suggest that government is a subordinate to the citizen, no the other way around. it was a radically new idea.

Rights are natural. Each individuals is bestowed with certain rights. That they may be violated by others doesn't mean you do not have them. That's a foolish argument.

You know I agree with what you are saying but not entirely with your conclusion, if I am understandng it correctly .

Government is a gang. - Can't argue that - two thumbs up !

Yes Govt. should be the arbitrator to defend our "natural" rights, but the Govt. is comprised of people, not god-like creatures of vast wisdom. People are prone to bias - in fact it has been my experience that the louder they scream they are unbiased - the more biased they are. People are also prone to being corrupt and tribalistic .

That Rights can exist without a Government of sorts is were we part ways . It's fine to say that someone stomps on your rights yo'll kick him to the curb, but in reality when an organization stomps on your rights, an organization such as shall we say the Hells Angels or the Bloods - in absense of the Police to defend you - you ain't gonna be the one doing the kicking my friend no matter how big and bad ass you may think you are- there's alwayssomeone bigger and badder than you - and they come in packs.

That presumes that this so called gang would only be after me. Which is highly improbable. People will band together when they see that this sort of action is taking place against neighbors, etc. But it does beg the question - since government is a gang that by any standard today, is nothing more than organized crime, why exactly do the majority of people allow it to continue? I think the answer is equally absurd. Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote.

So why do you allow it to continue?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote. That when they cast one, it actually comes into play regarding the gangs operations. it doesn't though. Which is why at this point, with that realization, we have far more apathy to the system than participation.

 

[G.T.]

Because they believe that they are a participant in it via the vote. That when they cast one, it actually comes into play regarding the gangs operations. it doesn't though. Which is why at this point, with that realization, we have far more apathy to the system than participation.

what are you personally doing to stop the gubbamint from thugging you up and thefting your money via taxes and violating your natural rights..........

what have you deployed to secure your rights, besides assert them on a message board something about curb stomping someone......

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.

If natural rights are self-evident, how can they require recognition? ZING.
Another nail in the coffin.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.

When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.

If natural rights are self-evident, how can they require recognition? ZING.
Another nail in the coffin.

That's like asking how come the man ran the stop sign before he learned to read. We tend to call that sort of thing 'revelation'. It's a recognition of something overlooked previously. or only hinted upon. Pretty basic

 

[G.T.]

it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.

When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.

the question is not ridiculous

its pertinent and it reveals the value of the founders versus the complacency and big talk / no-do dissenters of today

in a word: balls

if I truly believed the government was excessively diminishing my freedom or way of life, I'd start by organizing and gathering enough of the willing and use my voice first and foremost as loud as humanly possible

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, it should have read that western nations had slavery after the establishment of natural rights. By establishment, I should have also said recognition. Sorry for the confusion there.

If natural rights are self-evident, how can they require recognition? ZING.
Another nail in the coffin.

That's like asking how come the man ran the stop sign before he learned to read. We tend to call that sort of thing 'revelation'. It's a recognition of something overlooked previously. or only hinted upon. Pretty basic

Well,no. If it's self-evident, the it's self evident. It requires no discovery. That's what self evident means. Clearly rights are not self evident, as no one prior to the Enlightenment believed in them.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're falling back heavily on semantics here, of course.

The stop sign was self evident to those who could read, but the illiterate man ran the sign. Was the sign not there or was there a failure of the man to recognize, or realize the sign and it's implications?

Just because the people before enlightenment didn't recognize, or realize their natural rights, didn't mean they didn't have them.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.

When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.

the question is not ridiculous

its pertinent and it reveals the value of the founders versus the complacency and big talk / no-do dissenters of today

in a word: balls

if I truly believed the government was excessively diminishing my freedom or way of life, I'd start by organizing and gathering enough of the willing and use my voice first and foremost as loud as humanly possible

OK....go ahead. Or don't. Completely irrelevant.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are babbling incoherently. Nothing is "self evident" about this. As I mentioned, no one can give an account for where they came from, hwo we know what they are, and what the parameters of them are. No one has been able to answer these questions.
You have not defended your statements. You have added no facts, except error. The Bible does not have any "rights" in the sense we are discussing here. The opposite. Biblical morality consists of obligations one person has to another. Those are not rights.
No society had rights as we understand them.

Everything in bold is nothing more than a litany of mindless slogans. My foundational posts above this exchange between you and me most certainly do address and answer every last one of your absurdly obtuse allegations.

You're just a closed-minded, intellectual bigot. Where do they come from?! Are you an atheist?

Babbling incoherently?! No, sir! You just don't know your history or recognize the motifs of natural law.

The only thing I wrote out of turn in the above is chaffing at the bit, when obviously I meant chomping at the bit. I don't care who you are, that's funny. Brain fart.

Look, it's late, and I don't have time tonight to address what is in fact the stuff of you babbling incoherently. From the jump, you have uttered one silly ass, self-negating sentiment after another. Everyone of your arguments actually prove the existence of innate rights . . . but it just flies right over your head.

The only aspect of natural law that's theoretical goes to the science of government, i.e., the form of government that would constitute a just and stable instrument to secure (promote and protect) the innate rights of man. This entails the precise formulations and arrangements of powers and institutions, and the Constitution isn't perfect.

In the meantime get this straight: THE ESSENCE OF NATURAL LAW OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN TRADITION OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IS THE SOCIOPOLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY'S ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THOUGHT. IT IS THE GOLDEN RULE AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE SAME.

Hello!

Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government, for example, is directly extrapolated from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, replete with one biblical citation after another as the ontological justification for the entire edifice!

Further, the subsequent central themes of natural law are the very real distinctions between defensive force and initial force, between consent and imposition, bottomed on the distinction between good and evil.

Moral conduct verses immoral conduct is the essence of natural law, and the distinction between the two is the very means by which we apprehend what the innate rights of man are and what they are not.

You know damn well when someone is violating your rights, Rabbi, and you know precisely what rights of yours they are violating when they do.

Are you telling us you're stupid or something?

I've put down the foundation for natural law in the posts addressed to the OP and Delta4Embassy; the case for natural law and the inalienable rights of man is incontrovertible. You're throwing yourself up against a brick wall.

I don't see you refuting anything in the foundational posts. I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong about the origins and the historical development of natural law proper, and I don't see you acknowledging the fact that you were wrong to claim that the notion of innate rights is strictly a product of the Enlightenment either. The notion goes back centuries before that, all the way back to the dawn of man.

In fact, as for natural law proper, Augustine actually expounded his rendition of it from the adumbrations of Aristotle and the Apostolic Fathers of the Second Century A.D. .

No, sir, you are mistaken. The political thinkers of the Enlightenment who arguably perfected the construct of natural law proper did so standing on the shoulders of the progenitors of the construct: the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers and the Reformationists.

What the hell do you thinking you're doing anyway? What the hell are you trying pull here?

You've made it abundantly clear before God and everybody that you don't believe in the actuality of innate rights, and you obviously can't decipher the pertinent extrapolations from the ontological to the practical. We can all clearly see that you haven't read the works of the historical cannon of natural law. We can all see that you don't know dick about the matter and have never really thought anything through.

Tomorrow I'll take your various statements and those of others and turn them against you, showing you precisely why they actually prove the existence of innate rights. In fact, I'll show you precisely why all you naysayers do apprehend the actuality of innate rights.

You may not admit it out of pride, but make no mistake about it, every honest and astute intellect on this board will see that you are lying and have nothing but slogans for arguments.

We classical liberals of natural law don't give a damn what leftists say, for we know they won't dignify the truth because everything they stand for means to destroy the truth and erect a collectivist tyranny. Oh, yeah. The elites among them know precisely what rights they're out to suppress . . . but, curiously, only insofar as they are exercised by classical liberals, not by them. Gee. How do they manage to pinpoint the inalienable rights that bedevil their designs when they supposedly don't know what they are because inalienable rights supposedly don't exist?

Magic!

Snap out of it, Rabbi. Get a clue. You know better.

I've reported your post for personal attacks and violations of the CDZ. Good luck with that.
I am hardly a leftist. Not even the most committed leftists here would claim I am.
You haven't produced anything but a run of verbiage, appeals to authority, terms and obfuscations. Good luck with that.

Really? You open up at me with "babbling incoherently" without even bothering to read my posts above our exchange. That's clear. Actually, until now I didn't even realize I was in CDZ as I entered the thread via another's statistics and then via mine thereafter. And I didn't hit you that hard, Rabbi, and you know it.

Reading comprehension? I didn't say you were a leftist, Rabbi. I know you're not a leftist, Rabbi. And you know I know that, don't you? I subtly suggested that you are behaving, thinking and debating like a leftist, Rabbi.

You have not directly engaged one single observation of mine. Not one! Your standard response amounts to "babbling incoherently." Well, given the fact that the ideas in my foundational posts were not originally asserted by me; i.e., I merely shared, no less, what the leading lights of natural law and the innate rights of man have propounded, I guess they were babbling incoherently too. LOL!

I clearly showed that you are utterly clueless about the historical origins and the historical iterations of the construct of innate rights. It most certainly is not the mere product of the Enlightenment as you claimed!

And the Enlightenment thinkers were not the first to propound the construct of natural law proper!

You are refuted on those points. Yes? No? I didn't show that? I didn't make an argument? Where's your counter argument?

What a sham.

What else are you wrong about?

Rabbi writes: You haven't produced anything but a run of verbiage, appeals to authority, terms and obfuscations.

No, Rabbi. That's you all day long, arguing just like a leftist does, exposing your historical and ideological ignorance all along the way. This is how leftists argue, Rabbi. It's all personal. Unsubstantiated allegations regarding the nature of your opponent’s arguments, but no direct citation and refutation of them actually showing these things are true. Just like leftists argue.

"Verbiage"?

No, Rabbi. I established a baseline of actual ideas, propounded by history's masters of the topic. No direct refutation of these, eh? Just like leftists argue.

"Appeals to authority"?

No, Rabbi. That's you. And your favorite appeals to authority throughout this thread have been: "That's bull!" "Jefferson's full of bull!" "Locke's full of bull!"

Funny thing is you never tell us why everyone but you is so much full of bull, not really, in any direct refutation of the actual ideas they assert. You distort their ideas a lot though.

"Terms"?

LOL! Precisely. Terms you don't recognize because you don't know, haven't read, the historical literature on natural law. You could ask. But no, that would be too much like a real discussion in good faith.

"Obfuscations"?

LOL! Akin to your evasions regarding fallacious historical claims about the constructs of innate ideas and natural law?

*crickets chirping*

 

[G.T.]

it can't be changed. Too many willing participants. People love to use government to steal, exact violence on others, etc.... The only change that will come is when the government inevitably destroys the social structure entirely and we go back to square one. I find the question ridiculous.

When it IS destroyed, and the legion of mindless, ethically/morally bankrupt takers turn against those who can sustain, I'll defend myself from them. the same as anyone else.

the question is not ridiculous

its pertinent and it reveals the value of the founders versus the complacency and big talk / no-do dissenters of today

in a word: balls

if I truly believed the government was excessively diminishing my freedom or way of life, I'd start by organizing and gathering enough of the willing and use my voice first and foremost as loud as humanly possible

OK....go ahead. Or don't. Completely irrelevant.

I don't feel I'm living in tyranny.

But I'm sure there's enough Libertarians in the Country to where if they had any balls, they'd actually stand up for what they think.

There's the crux of being a libertarian. They think that everyone else wants to be a slave to the Government, yet - - - - - they're the ones who THINK that they're slaves to the government yet don't do anything. The others don't think they're under tyranny. The onus of "wanting to be a slave" is on the people who actually think they are, yet do nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Breathing.

In other words, you got nothing.

No he could do that quite easily.

In that case you should arrest every person who ever causes a fatal accident.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're falling back heavily on semantics here, of course.

The stop sign was self evident to those who could read, but the illiterate man ran the sign. Was the sign not there or was there a failure of the man to recognize, or realize the sign and it's implications?

Just because the people before enlightenment didn't recognize, or realize their natural rights, didn't mean they didn't have them.

The analogy is imperfect and irrelevant.
Self evident means just that. The fact that no one recognized it prior to the Enlightement indicates it was not self evident at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously? That's your answer? I'll just take that as a "I really have no idea what I mean as I never considered it before."

I think you should take it as the fact that you aren't actually thinking things through.

That would be your error, then.
That everyone dies is irrelevant to the discussion. I dont know why you mention an obvious fact. My point was that simply living does not accrue rights. The proof is that everything can be stripped from someone with no consequence.

The only way you could actually prove that killing someone takes away their right to life is if you could show a source for that life that exists somewhere outside their life. For example, if we all were instantly reborn the moment our bodies die, making everyone immortal and someone prevented that rebirth, then hey would be taking away the right to life. Since life actually includes death as part of the natural process, and no sane person has ever argued that everyone gets a certain number of days on the planet, no more, no less, claiming that death actually takes away the right to life itself is absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think so. They're not self-evident in nature like apples and crickets. Should humans on Earth all cease to exist, do rights still exist? They don't exist under the scientific microscope, much like religion or concepts. They are all created and perpetuated by humans.

Are you telling me that there is absolutely no evidence of rights outside your head? How do you explain the fact that species survive better of they cooperate if there are no rights?

I believe so. It's much like how concepts of communism, equality, righteousness, and evil all exist in our heads. Remove humans from the equation, and concepts, beliefs, and morals all cease to exist.

These things are all man-made hypothetical structures. Created by humans to influence humans. Take scientology, for example, which is a relatively new fabrication. It doesn't exist naturally in nature with the foxes and bumblebees without the existence of humans. Cooperation is beneficial within a species, but how they go about it is based on things not inherent in nature, like chemical anatomy.

The only way I could accept that is if I ignored all the evidence that contradicted it.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph