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

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A friend was alarmed I would endorse any kind of Conservative or Republican narrative or agenda seen as a threat to women's rights. How do you explain that if you already depend on govt for rights then you are not free?

Doesn't real freedom mean you have rights that are "inalienable" i.e., with or without govt endorsing them.

I tried to respond as below.
Should I try harder to make the point that the way to protect and claim rights is to practice and enforce them directly?

How would you explain this in plain terms?

RE: "What rights of women are you willing to sacrifice by supporting Conservatives or Republicans pushing prolife laws"

Women and all other groups of people need to learn how to practice enforce and represent our own rights. It's called ownership. And self governance. Equal empowerment. Do you know how in church history, the masses used to be illiterate people who depended on priests to read, write and have authority over the laws -- until Luther insisted that people learn the laws directly and embrace authority of law through Jesus to connect with God directly by faith. NOT by relying on priests as the middleman between people and God because Jesus already fulfills that. Well today we're going through a similar Reformation where people assume equally authority and responsibility as the state. We learn the laws and embody them directly. With spiritual laws we the people become one as the church. With natural laws, Jesus also fulfills that path as Justice to bring peace. We all make this process of peace through justice happen equally.

Sad to say our right do indeed depend on our shitty ass government.

They can VERY EASILY remove any of our rights.

Thinking otherwise is fantasy land

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

If natural rights were real they would be universal.

They are universal.

Not even planetary, mind you. Universal.

American women have less rights than American men.

Whaleshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dear frigidweirdo and M14 Shooter
There are differences between natural occurring rights and political rights relying on govt:

Correct.
There is no right to vote unless there is some sort of government to create the election.
There is no right to a jury trial, unless there is some sort of government to hold that trial.
There is no right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure unless there is some sort of government that might conduct said search and seizure

Those aren't natural rights as government is created by man, not the nature of man.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Natural rights is a beautiful idea.. philosophical, idealistic even religious.. but only upheld by government.

False.
Rights are upheld by those who hold them.
Sometimes, to uphold these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It is in no way necessary for the state to 'uphold' rights for the rights to exist.

You can disagree - but if you do so, tell us how China can violate the human rights of its people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well yeah. The constitution and amendments guarantee freedom of religion.

Guarantee freedom of religion...
... against actions against it by the state.
If there is no state, there need be no guarantee.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which effectively demonstrates the idea of 'natural rights' is a fairy story.

In no way is this true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Credit myself for being prepared - that is, to bring my AR SBR and a couple spare 30-rd magazines.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They are universal.

Not even planetary, mind you. Universal.

Whaleshit.

You are lost in some libertarian fantasy world. Do you have more rights than a Ukranian or a Chinese person ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

I am glad that you agree with me.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You are lost in some libertarian fantasy world. Do you have more rights than a Ukranian or a Chinese person ?

We have the same natural human rights.

The American government under the control of the socialist party does a piss poor job protecting our human rights.
The Chinese government doesn't even pretend to care about individual rights.

And the more important correction here was your stupid bullshit about women, who are unfairly advantaged, having "less rights." But then it's clear by now you are a female supremacist dipshit.

 

[The Duke]

Sad to say our right do indeed depend on our shitty ass government.

They can VERY EASILY remove any of our rights.

Thinking otherwise is fantasy land

Iranian women have a thing or 2 to say about that.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

We have the same natural human rights.

The American government under the control of the socialist party does a piss poor job protecting our human rights.
The Chinese government doesn't even pretend to care about individual rights.

And the more important correction here was your stupid bullshit about women, who are unfairly advantaged, having "less rights." But then it's clear by now you are a female supremacist dipshit.

So your rights are dependent on govt. Womens rights in the US are even more dependent on govt. Its a worrying time for womens rights when one party is the equivalent to the taliban.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So your rights are dependent on govt.

No.

Governments and civilizations are created by people to protect rights. As the purpose and reason for their continued existence, rights would have to be more fundamental than government.

Womens rights in the US are even more dependent on govt. Its a worrying time for womens rights when one party is the equivalent to the taliban.

Taliban?

Okay, we've gone from mere dipshit to retarded.

Banning abortion promotes equality, fool.

 

[Curried Goats]

No.

Governments and civilizations are created by people to protect rights. As the purpose and reason for their continued existence, rights would have to be more fundamental than government.

Only problem is you can't describe rights without government.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Iranian women have a thing or 2 to say about that.

News Flash

This isn't Iran lol

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Only problem is you can't describe rights without government.

I thought it was just me.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Here's how I explain things to liberals... then

 

[cnm]

??? When I just cited that parties already practice these "rights" with govt regulating them to do so?

This bit

so people can represent defend and or exercise their own rights freedoms beliefs and interests?

Which implies quite clearly there are competing 'rights'. So they can hardly be 'natural'. Or, to be fair, if competing rights are 'natural' then the term has no meaning. But I repeat myself.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

They are universal where people agree to live by the Golden Rule, and defend rights of others equally as ours.

 

[emilynghiem]

False.
Rights are upheld by those who hold them.
Sometimes, to uphold these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It is in no way necessary for the state to 'uphold' rights for the rights to exist.

You can disagree - but if you do so, tell us how China can violate the human rights of its people.

^ Yes, when people are the govt, that means we the people must uphold and enforce the standards we want govt to reflect publicly. I'm looking at the Golden Rule approach, where if you want free speech and free choice to exercise and express your creed, how are you treating your neighbor when it comes to theirs?

Parties fail this test. What will it take to fix this? Instead of current trends of forcing one parties beliefs on the rest of the nation, abusing judicial and executive orders for one sided biased mandates only half the voters consent to, and the battle to censor or overrule other opinions I'm the media?

We have a zoo going on. If we don't like being overruled by other parties taking dominance, why do this to others?