How do you explain Natural Rights to a Liberal who believes rights depend on Govt?

[The Duke]

Yes, as a Constitutionalist who identifies as Democrat, and gets attacked more by Liberal friends for having much the same views as Christian Conservative Republicans, I get accused all the time of being "brainwashed" by GOP rhetoric. And I find Conservatives don't mind being questioned, which is welcomed compared to being assumed guilty and not having any opportunity to explain or defend the basis of such beliefs.

As for Conservatives held to answer for beliefs that depend on a Christian God, this debate is going on constantly. I have run into such very arguments and obstruction dividing Christian Anarchists, Libertarians and Conservative Constitutionalists over whom to blame for statism and whose faith in God or obedience is compromised and false.

Curiously enough, one of the Christian Anarchists who denounces both left and right for statism, says he doesn't believe in rights. So that sounds like what liberals are saying.

My question is why can't we align here?

If the Christian Anarchists are against Statism why can't that be aligned with Libertarians and Conservatives?

What does it take to acknowledge that if we don't see rights or govt the same way, then certainly govt should not be abused to dictate any of these systems on other people who disagree and believe differently!

I have no problem questioning these systems, which is preferable to attacks and assumed accusations with no discussion and chance to answer and explain . Questions are a much better option than that!

Let's watch this over time:
What do you think will prevail and sustain -- Chinese govt controlling through top down oppression? Or people rising up and uniting anyway, despite oppressive punishment, because self govt is more natural, effective and sustainable?

As for this one woman, she effectively reached me. I heard her petition and protest. After the people protested their own Govt for trying to blame the doctor who warned the public that this outbreak was dangerous, and required SARS-level precautions and protocol, the Chinese officials retracted their censure against this doctor for failure to comply with govt orders and declared him a national hero. That was after public outrage.

It wasn't just this one lone woman, but many other risking govt retribution in speaking up and demanding changes.

The Chinese people aren't completely helpless even though they face massive authoritarian oppression. Conservative and Christian Chinese leaders have used all available means to connect with other sympathizers and work for reforms anyway. The Chinese Conservatives still fighting for freedom of speech and press, such as the owners of the Epoch Times, even teamed up with other American Conservatives concerned with govt oppression of political opponents in media narratives spun regarding Russia collusion and interference while censoring exposure of Chinese govt propaganda and interference with media.

Let's see how this plays out in the longrun.

My understanding of human nature is that people will fight for freedom, liberty Justice and Peace. And will not stop until oppression is overcome.

What's going on in Iran with the women these days? They were in full revolt last I heard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's watch this over time:
What do you think will prevail and sustain -- Chinese govt controlling through top down oppression? Or people rising up and uniting anyway, despite oppressive punishment, because self govt is more natural, effective and sustainable?

As for this one woman, she effectively reached me. I heard her petition and protest. After the people protested their own Govt for trying to blame the doctor who warned the public that this outbreak was dangerous, and required SARS-level precautions and protocol, the Chinese officials retracted their censure against this doctor for failure to comply with govt orders and declared him a national hero. That was after public outrage.

It wasn't just this one lone woman, but many other risking govt retribution in speaking up and demanding changes.

The Chinese people aren't completely helpless even though they face massive authoritarian oppression. Conservative and Christian Chinese leaders have used all available means to connect with other sympathizers and work for reforms anyway. The Chinese Conservatives still fighting for freedom of speech and press, such as the owners of the Epoch Times, even teamed up with other American Conservatives concerned with govt oppression of political opponents in media narratives spun regarding Russia collusion and interference while censoring exposure of Chinese govt propaganda and interference with media.

Let's see how this plays out in the longrun.

My understanding of human nature is that people will fight for freedom, liberty Justice and Peace. And will not stop until oppression is overcome.

People rise up. Why? Do they rise up because they have the "natural right" to do so, or do they do it because they want the power? Or they don't like who's in power? Or because they've been manipulated? Or because they're angry.

What is "self government"? Is it anarchy where one person gets to rule themselves and no one else? Well, we know this will lead to someone taking the power and being king/dictator or something similar. Or is it when every single person accepts the leadership they have? I don't know of such a place.

Yes "this woman" reached you, and she might not be real. She might have been created by the US govt to ferment trouble in China.

You're basically saying human nature is "natural rights", which seems odd seeing how we already have the term "human nature". So, either we use "human nature" or there's a difference between "human nature" and "natural rights".

 

[The Duke]

People rise up. Why? Do they rise up because they have the "natural right" to do so, or do they do it because they want the power? Or they don't like who's in power? Or because they've been manipulated? Or because they're angry.

What is "self government"? Is it anarchy where one person gets to rule themselves and no one else? Well, we know this will lead to someone taking the power and being king/dictator or something similar. Or is it when every single person accepts the leadership they have? I don't know of such a place.

Yes "this woman" reached you, and she might not be real. She might have been created by the US govt to ferment trouble in China.

You're basically saying human nature is "natural rights", which seems odd seeing how we already have the term "human nature". So, either we use "human nature" or there's a difference between "human nature" and "natural rights".

STFU, you fucking statist turd. Go peddle your ideology someplace besides America, nobody is going to buy your bullshit here.

Government is at best a petulant servant and at worst a tyrannical master.

George Washington

AKA Founder of The United States of America. Fuck You!

 

[emilynghiem]

People rise up. Why? Do they rise up because they have the "natural right" to do so, or do they do it because they want the power? Or they don't like who's in power? Or because they've been manipulated? Or because they're angry.

What is "self government"? Is it anarchy where one person gets to rule themselves and no one else? Well, we know this will lead to someone taking the power and being king/dictator or something similar. Or is it when every single person accepts the leadership they have? I don't know of such a place.

Yes "this woman" reached you, and she might not be real. She might have been created by the US govt to ferment trouble in China.

You're basically saying human nature is "natural rights", which seems odd seeing how we already have the term "human nature". So, either we use "human nature" or there's a difference between "human nature" and "natural rights".

People rise up when there is manmade oppression that violates the "rights or laws" of human nature.

That is part of natural laws.

When violation occur, the natural response is to rise up and speak out in protest.

This is a natural occurring process.

From the Greek philosophers to the Europeans who published books, debates, and treatises on "natural rights" that were the foundation of today's "Liberalism" split into two schools of ideology, the Classic Liberals after Locke's approach to limits on Govt and the Radical Liberals after Rousseau who argue that govt is for establishing collective will of the people who then fight for recognition of political rights through govt, this "democratic process" was spelled out in the US Bill of Rights.

We still fight the same battles, but the Constitution gives us written principles to use as common framework.

The people who agree to embody and enforce these common laws will continue to petition to redress grievances. We will be more united and effective by agreeing on the process instead of fighting to control it.

You bring up "fighting over power."

What does it take to empower people equally instead of fighting for control?

Can all parties be equally recognized to govern their own members?

How did the 13 colonies agree to recognize locally sovereign states and still unite under a national Constitution?

How did Muslims and Hindus agree to quit fighting each other and unite to end British imperialist rule over the people of India?

What step or realization is missing here?

 

[frigidweirdo]

People rise up when there is manmade oppression that violates the "rights or laws" of human nature.

That is part of natural laws.

When violation occur, the natural response is to rise up and speak out in protest.

This is a natural occurring process.

From the Greek philosophers to the Europeans who published books, debates, and treatises on "natural rights" that were the foundation of today's "Liberalism" split into two schools of ideology, the Classic Liberals after Locke's approach to limits on Govt and the Radical Liberals after Rousseau who argue that govt is for establishing collective will of the people who then fight for recognition of political rights through govt, this "democratic process" was spelled out in the US Bill of Rights.

We still fight the same battles, but the Constitution gives us written principles to use as common framework.

The people who agree to embody and enforce these common laws will continue to petition to redress grievances. We will be more united and effective by agreeing on the process instead of fighting to control it.

You bring up "fighting over power."

What does it take to empower people equally instead of fighting for control?

Can all parties be equally recognized to govern their own members?

How did the 13 colonies agree to recognize locally sovereign states and still unite under a national Constitution?

How did Muslims and Hindus agree to quit fighting each other and unite to end British imperialist rule over the people of India?

What step or realization is missing here?

I still don't see an answer to what the difference between "human nature" and "natural rights".

Maybe you're trying to express the sense of identity, the sense of "I" as a sentient being here. I'm not sure.

 

[The Duke]

I still don't see an answer to what the difference between "human nature" and "natural rights".

Maybe you're trying to express the sense of identity, the sense of "I" as a sentient being here. I'm not sure.

You're just obtuse.

Who said this?

"
One's god dictates the kind of law one implements and also controls the application and development of that law over time. Given enough time, all non-Christian systems of law self-destruct in a fit of tyranny.

"

 

[emilynghiem]

I still don't see an answer to what the difference between "human nature" and "natural rights".

Maybe you're trying to express the sense of identity, the sense of "I" as a sentient being here. I'm not sure.

Since my question was what do you call "natural rights" if you see no difference between that and "human nature" then you answered the question.

We are talking about human nature.

Within an agreed contract, then you call that having rights - within that context.

So what is missing: what do we consider the equal context here, what is the common framework or "social contract" by which all people agree to respect common laws or "rights" that people have?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Since my question was what do you call "natural rights" if you see no difference between that and "human nature" then you answered the question.

We are talking about human nature.

Within an agreed contract, then you call that having rights - within that context.

So what is missing: what do we consider the equal context here, what is the common framework or "social contract" by which all people agree to respect common laws or "rights" that people have?

So, there's no such thing as "natural rights" then? It's just another fancy name for something else?

What agreed contract is there? Looking back at the Chinese example, there was no "agreed contract". China said one thing, the woman said "screw you" and you said this was "natural rights". Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[The Duke]

So, there's no such thing as "natural rights" then? It's just another fancy name for something else?

What agreed contract is there? Looking back at the Chinese example, there was no "agreed contract". China said one thing, the woman said "screw you" and you said this was "natural rights". Doesn't make sense to me.

As I said before: You're obtuse.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, there's no such thing as "natural rights" then? It's just another fancy name for something else?

What agreed contract is there? Looking back at the Chinese example, there was no "agreed contract". China said one thing, the woman said "screw you" and you said this was "natural rights". Doesn't make sense to me.

^ let's create an agreed contract first where people agree to respect each other's rights freedom consent and beliefs.

Then we will see what terms are used to reach such an agreement.

As for "natural rights" -- if you call this human nature we can discuss and agree on common standards using that term.

For other people who call this "natural rights" that group can use that term and agree what we're talking about.

I'm still curious what terms my friend will use who doesn't call it "rights" either. But will say both liberals like you or Conservatives who use Govt at all are both Statists.

If we agree to go back to respecting "natural laws" we can at least agree the Chinese govt oppression of human free will and freedom to petition and protest is part of unnatural violations.

Then we are looking at at least 3 different levels of laws (1) the natural laws of human nature that exist with or without govt protection (2) the standards that US citizens agree to as codified by our govt laws as well (3) and the process by which other people and countries outside the US context of agreeing on our laws, can establish equal respect for "laws of human nature" through their own systems

 

[frigidweirdo]

^ let's create an agreed contract first where people agree to respect each other's rights freedom consent and beliefs.

Then we will see what terms are used to reach such an agreement.

As for "natural rights" -- if you call this human nature we can discuss and agree on common standards using that term.

For other people who call this "natural rights" that group can use that term and agree what we're talking about.

I'm still curious what terms my friend will use who doesn't call it "rights" either. But will say both liberals like you or Conservatives who use Govt at all are both Statists.

If we agree to go back to respecting "natural laws" we can at least agree the Chinese govt oppression of human free will and freedom to petition and protest is part of unnatural violations.

Then we are looking at at least 3 different levels of laws (1) the natural laws of human nature that exist with or without govt protection (2) the standards that US citizens agree to as codified by our govt laws as well (3) and the process by which other people and countries outside the US context of agreeing on our laws, can establish equal respect for "laws of human nature" through their own systems

So, for you a "natural right" is only in existence when two parties agree to the same thing?

Why would that not just be an "agreement" then?

Seems to me that you see "natural rights" as something you've decided should be so. The Chinese government doesn't agree, which eliminates my first question.

Therefore "natural rights" for you are "expectations" then?

I don't think there are any "natural laws".

For example, I'm a vegetarian. When a "pro-lifer" comes to me and says they eat meat, I know they're hypocritical. But the "pro-lifer" has decided their "expectations", that "pro-life" is "anti-abortion" just without the prefix "anti-". They might say life is a "natural right", but they're not being sincere.

So again, I think it's just "expectations".

Let's change this to what I think you might be trying to express.

Power.

1) We two are in a room together. I say "give me all your money, or I'll beat you up" you give me your money.

I have all the power.
If you say "no, I have a gun" and I go away, you have all the power.

If we fight together then the winner gets the power, but maybe only a part of the power because next time maybe the winner will be cautious.

That's your natural rights.

2) We fight a war and we win, and we codify who gets power, and we give power to the people in the form of a Bill of Rights AND we get the government to abide by this power sharing situation.

That's the current rights situation in the US to a certain degree.
Remember slavery existed for 1/3rd of the US's time. Segregation another 1/3rd. Power existed for those who could take it, and not for those who couldn't, but over time they managed to get themselves (others helped too of course) more of that slice of power.

3) The US says "give me your oil" and the Iraqis say "go away" so the US says "we're invading, how'd you like them apples"??? Or Russia invades the Ukraine and the US says "we're not fighting, but we're sending weapons".

It's all about POWER, who has the power, who protects power, who wants power.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, for you a "natural right" is only in existence when two parties agree to the same thing?

Why would that not just be an "agreement" then?

Seems to me that you see "natural rights" as something you've decided should be so. The Chinese government doesn't agree, which eliminates my first question.

Therefore "natural rights" for you are "expectations" then?

I don't think there are any "natural laws".

For example, I'm a vegetarian. When a "pro-lifer" comes to me and says they eat meat, I know they're hypocritical. But the "pro-lifer" has decided their "expectations", that "pro-life" is "anti-abortion" just without the prefix "anti-". They might say life is a "natural right", but they're not being sincere.

So again, I think it's just "expectations".

Let's change this to what I think you might be trying to express.

Power.

1) We two are in a room together. I say "give me all your money, or I'll beat you up" you give me your money.

I have all the power.
If you say "no, I have a gun" and I go away, you have all the power.

If we fight together then the winner gets the power, but maybe only a part of the power because next time maybe the winner will be cautious.

That's your natural rights.

2) We fight a war and we win, and we codify who gets power, and we give power to the people in the form of a Bill of Rights AND we get the government to abide by this power sharing situation.

That's the current rights situation in the US to a certain degree.
Remember slavery existed for 1/3rd of the US's time. Segregation another 1/3rd. Power existed for those who could take it, and not for those who couldn't, but over time they managed to get themselves (others helped too of course) more of that slice of power.

3) The US says "give me your oil" and the Iraqis say "go away" so the US says "we're invading, how'd you like them apples"??? Or Russia invades the Ukraine and the US says "we're not fighting, but we're sending weapons".

It's all about POWER, who has the power, who protects power, who wants power.

No I'm saying the principle still exists.

But the TERMS people call it depend on those

So, for you a "natural right" is only in existence when two parties agree to the same thing?

Why would that not just be an "agreement" then?

Seems to me that you see "natural rights" as something you've decided should be so. The Chinese government doesn't agree, which eliminates my first question.

Therefore "natural rights" for you are "expectations" then?

I don't think there are any "natural laws".

For example, I'm a vegetarian. When a "pro-lifer" comes to me and says they eat meat, I know they're hypocritical. But the "pro-lifer" has decided their "expectations", that "pro-life" is "anti-abortion" just without the prefix "anti-". They might say life is a "natural right", but they're not being sincere.

So again, I think it's just "expectations".

Let's change this to what I think you might be trying to express.

Power.

1) We two are in a room together. I say "give me all your money, or I'll beat you up" you give me your money.

I have all the power.
If you say "no, I have a gun" and I go away, you have all the power.

If we fight together then the winner gets the power, but maybe only a part of the power because next time maybe the winner will be cautious.

That's your natural rights.

2) We fight a war and we win, and we codify who gets power, and we give power to the people in the form of a Bill of Rights AND we get the government to abide by this power sharing situation.

That's the current rights situation in the US to a certain degree.
Remember slavery existed for 1/3rd of the US's time. Segregation another 1/3rd. Power existed for those who could take it, and not for those who couldn't, but over time they managed to get themselves (others helped too of course) more of that slice of power.

3) The US says "give me your oil" and the Iraqis say "go away" so the US says "we're invading, how'd you like them apples"??? Or Russia invades the Ukraine and the US says "we're not fighting, but we're sending weapons".

It's all about POWER, who has the power, who protects power, who wants power.

No, I'm saying the principles still exist.

It's the TERMS that depend on what people agree to call them.

I think we need to clarify both levels:

1. Concept wise, we need to agree on the actual principles to enforce them consistently. The principles still exist, but as the other posts brought up other countries, the real life practice and enforcement of these principles (even though they exist and govern human nature in general) is obstructed in countries that don't teach and exemplify them as the foundations of govt and cultural institutions.

2. The terminology like "natural rights" depends on what people agree to call them. Again the principles still exist, and don't rely on terminology in order to be real. It's the other way around.
Because these exist, everyone has some concept of them so the language follows from there.

We just obviously have different words or framework for describing these principles and democratic process.

This is still closer, at least we are discussing the principles and mechanisms.

These exist regardless if we ever agree on the terminology and despite different beliefs on where govt fits in, and how much can be done inside or outside govt systems.

It looks like liberals will still insist or depend on govt to legislate collectively as central public authority from that viewpoint.

The Anarchists who don't believe in govt mandates will need to arrive at agreements by individual consent.

And the rest of the people I know who favor one party or another may consent to whatever those parties agree to, with or without govt, depending what their views are.

Just because some groups don't call them "natural rights" doesn't mean the concepts or principles that refers to doesn't exist. They just use a different term for the same things we refer to universally.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No I'm saying the principle still exists.

But the TERMS people call it depend on those

No, I'm saying the principles still exist.

It's the TERMS that depend on what people agree to call them.

I think we need to clarify both levels:

1. Concept wise, we need to agree on the actual principles to enforce them consistently. The principles still exist, but as the other posts brought up other countries, the real life practice and enforcement of these principles (even though they exist and govern human nature in general) is obstructed in countries that don't teach and exemplify them as the foundations of govt and cultural institutions.

2. The terminology like "natural rights" depends on what people agree to call them. Again the principles still exist, and don't rely on terminology in order to be real. It's the other way around.
Because these exist, everyone has some concept of them so the language follows from there.

We just obviously have different words or framework for describing these principles and democratic process.

This is still closer, at least we are discussing the principles and mechanisms.

These exist regardless if we ever agree on the terminology and despite different beliefs on where govt fits in, and how much can be done inside or outside govt systems.

It looks like liberals will still insist or depend on govt to legislate collectively as central public authority from that viewpoint.

The Anarchists who don't believe in govt mandates will need to arrive at agreements by individual consent.

And the rest of the people I know who favor one party or another may consent to whatever those parties agree to, with or without govt, depending what their views are.

Just because some groups don't call them "natural rights" doesn't mean the concepts or principles that refers to doesn't exist. They just use a different term for the same things we refer to universally.

So "natural rights" only exist if you teach people that "natural rights" exist. Seems to defeat the whole object, especially as they're "natural" which implies all animals have them.

Personally what you're saying seems to be a "Harry Potter moment". Does "Harry Potter" exist? No, he's a fictional character. But "Harry Potter" does exist, as a fictional character. People know who he is, they know he's a boy, they know he's a wizard etc etc.

Because people accept "Harry Potter" as a thing, therefore "Harry Potter" exists, even though everyone knows he's fictional.

For me you're putting a lot of effort into explaining something which really only exists as an abstract thing that requires consent by two people. It's merely an agreement, nothing more.

Why make it into "natural rights"? What purpose does it serve?
For me it seems like it's some kind of power tool. People use these to try and get what they want.

"Oh, I have the natural right to defend myself" in order to try and force people to allow them to have guns, for example.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your existence and the existence of the world is the evidence.

Evidence that I and the world exist, not Natural Rights.

Hey man, what would you do if you were out in the woods with 2 big dogs (under your care) and a semiautomatic gun and all of a sudden 11 wild dogs started started rolling by out of nowhere and they hadn't noticed you yet? That's a decision I had to make one day. What would you do?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Where you're from, subject. The United States of America was founded much differently than that.

I mean the natural human rights to life, liberty, and property are still possessed by British folks, they just don’t have a government which does its job to protect them, and they aren’t really trying to fix that either, which means their rights as humans are being violated however comfortable they are with that ongoing violation.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Where you're from, subject. The United States of America was founded much differently than that.

Essentially its a different form of govt. Yoour freedoms are dependent on that govt. Why do you pretend otherwise ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If natural rights were real they would be universal. They are not,they are geographical and subject to government. Yours or someone elses.
Ukranians have less rights than me.
American women have less rights than American men.
Thats the way it goes.

 

[The Duke]

Essentially its a different form of govt. Yoour freedoms are dependent on that govt. Why do you pretend otherwise ?

Our freedoms are dependent on the government staying out of our business, dumbass.

All government does is infringe on freedoms. The more it's reigned in, the freer people are.

 

[Curried Goats]

Our freedoms are dependent on the government staying out of our business, dumbass.

All government does is infringe on freedoms. The more it's reigned in, the freer people are.

Exactly. You are free in Nature. You exchange freedom with governments and society in exchange for Rights.

 

[The Duke]

Exactly. You are free in Nature. You exchange freedom with governments and society in exchange for Rights.

The US laws and government were created with Natural Law in mind. It's the only country that had done that up to that

point, and it's the only country that has done it since. That's what makes the US unique and great!

Why The Founders Rooted The Legislative Branch In Natural Law

Our laws are intended to be an expression of our God-given ability to reason.

thefederalist.com

Natural Law, “Philosophy of the Founding Fathers” (3)

The prior post in this series may be found here. The question about what constitutes the fundamental law and rights of the people, and who can articulate the existence of those rights underwent fur…

memoirandremains.com

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

www.nlnrac.org