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

[M14 Shooter]

This bit

Which implies quite clearly there are competing 'rights'. So they can hardly be 'natural'.

There is -nothing- more natural than the competition inherent in the exercise of your rights.
Innumerable examples exist, even in a governed society - your right to life vs my right to property, for example.

 

[surada]

What wordy pretentious partisan crap. How would Conservatives feel about an equally long-winded and equally partisan thread with a title like …

“How do you explain Natural Rights to a Conservative who believes rights depend on “a Christian God”?​

Most of the comments of emilynghiem are, to me at least, just boring and loquacious nonsense. Of course she has her freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and free speech (generally considered “natural rights”). Just as I or any of us do. To me her comments seem … rather childish.

Liberals and Conservatives are NOT all alike. Some modern Republican Conservatives (or Trump cultists) are atheists, Ayn Randists or even nihilists. Many Liberal Democrats are profoundly religious or spiritual. Believers in “Natural Rights” can be stoics or Enlightenment influenced Deists like Thomas Paine. A “philosophy of natural rights” cannot be “proven” to be either right or wrong, and belief in a theistic God is not required to believe that some truths are self evident (or not). What the very concept of “God” means is open to debate, even among those who “believe in God” or something rather different … like “Natural Law.”

People didn't have natural rights any time in history. Certainly not in the middle ages.

The Magna Carta was a step in the right direction as was the US Constitution.

emilynghiem

 

[surada]

What wordy pretentious partisan crap. How would Conservatives feel about an equally long-winded and equally partisan thread with a title like …

“How do you explain Natural Rights to a Conservative who believes rights depend on “a Christian God”?​

Most of the comments of emilynghiem are, to me at least, just boring and loquacious nonsense. Of course she has her freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and free speech (generally considered “natural rights”). Just as I or any of us do. To me her comments seem … rather childish.

Liberals and Conservatives are NOT all alike. Some modern Republican Conservatives (or Trump cultists) are atheists, Ayn Randists or even nihilists. Many Liberal Democrats are profoundly religious or spiritual. Believers in “Natural Rights” can be stoics or Enlightenment influenced Deists like Thomas Paine. A “philosophy of natural rights” cannot be “proven” to be either right or wrong, and belief in a theistic God is not required to believe that some truths are self evident (or not). What the very concept of “God” means is open to debate, even among those who “believe in God” or something rather different … like “Natural Law.”

People didn't have natural rights any time in history. Certainly not in the middle ages.

The Magna Carta was a step in the right direction as was the US Constitution.

emilynghiem

 

[M14 Shooter]

People didn't have natural rights any time in history. Certainly not in the middle ages.

You are cnfused.
The fact a state suppresses/oppresses/denies your rights does not mean you do not have them.
That's why we keep hearing about China's human rights violations -- right?

 

[surada]

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?

There were no natural rights during the Spanish Inquisition or the witch burnings or the extermination of native Americans.. the Hawaiians probably had natural rights before we arrived. The Conquistadors did care about natural rights. Can you think of more examples?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There were no natural rights during the Spanish Inquisition or...

The fact a state suppresses/oppresses/denies your rights does not mean you do not have them.
That's why we keep hearing about China's human rights violations -- right?

 

[surada]

The fact a state suppresses/oppresses/denies your rights does not mean you do not have them.
That's why we keep hearing about China's human rights violations -- right?

Like the Inquisition or witch burnings?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like the Inquisition or witch burnings?

See post # 226.

 

[emilynghiem]

This bit

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.

Nope, that's part of human nature!
Each person has free will and vested interest. Humans seek to balance this with equitable relations with others (which still becomes biased by group or tribe we don't treat equally). Then we seek to harmonize with collective society. The "intermediary" level between individual consent / dissent and collective will is where the battles take place. That's where we address conflicts of interests, terms, and beliefs in relations with each other, as individuals and with group institutions. Religion and Politics gets messy, that's part of humanity being social creatures who get things done in teams and hierarchies to organize resources in a system of command.

All this is naturally what it means to be human and have to balance wants needs fears with what other people and groups value as their wants beliefs and objections as well.

The democratic process is what we use to address and resolve conflicts to make decisions together. Either collaborative or combative. Until we find what works sustainably

 

[Curried Goats]

You are cnfused.
The fact a state suppresses/oppresses/denies your rights does not mean you do not have them.
That's why we keep hearing about China's human rights violations -- right?

You seem confused my guy. In what way are you in possession of something that you already admit on the front end is being suppressed from you?

 

[notmyfault2020]

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.

If you haven't already, you should go to General

and click on the thread called something like: Why You Can't Win

very interesting video on how difficult it is to use facts and information to change the minds of.. well, virtually anyone but esp stupid people who don't know they are stupid

 

[The Duke]

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

cnm laughs at that, but that's what allows douchebags like him to exist at all.

Otherwise they would be exterminated like the vermin that they are.