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

[cnm]

We already have parties and media operating outside govt. Why not use these to facilitate democratic process so people can represent defend and or exercise their own rights freedoms beliefs and interests?

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

 

[toobfreak]

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

Just have the government come to them accusing them of something they had nothing to do with.

Makes a believer in natural rights out of them every time.

 

[emilynghiem]

Exactly Emily, my rights come from me, my higher power and I will defend anyone's rights any time any place, I want you to be free as me

Let's teach this by example.

The more people who learn to be as empowered as you are when you state this from a position of equal responsibility for governance, we achieve the true standard of Equal Justice Under Law.

What are the barriers?

What obstructs people from becoming equally empowered but remaining exploited by others playing on this fear of needing and depending on govt ?

How can we overcomes barriers of inequality and empower people equally without depending on govt (likes the idea of depending on majority rule or executive or judicial orders).

What better way can we enforce and establish standards of law where it's clearly coming from people first, and we hold govt and other institutions responsible as people are responsible to each other?

 

[surada]

They don't actually believe in God. So they believe "rights" are voted on in a democracy. And you're at the mercy of your government in a leftist totalitarian dictatorship.

You're wasting your breath. Might as well try to teach you dog algebra

People had very few rights under God. In the 1600s they put you in the stocks if you missed church. In Spain the Inquisition didn't consider your rights.. so what the hell are you talking about?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

People already convene in party precincts and already vote to nominate leaders and platforms within their own groups VOLUNTARILY.

No, the govt does not MAKE them do this.

People naturally exercise their "right" to petition, free speech etc.

The media and parties already show people doing this naturally on their own because it's human nature to express and defend our beliefs and interests.

Are you calling this something else besides natural laws and human rights?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The OP sees distinctions between the “proper way” to distinguish “natural rights” and “legal rights” largely in light of his religious values and tradition. Others see it in terms of the historically evolved U.S. Constitution, or as these distinctions were defined by various prominent Enlightenment thinkers. The basic ideas of such a distinction are actually ancient, but we — as “free men” — should and will perhaps inevitably define them in ways that make sense to our lives as citizens and men and women of conscience in our own unique 21st century society.

A good place to start, if one wants an historical overview of how these concepts evolved — they are still evolving — would be here:

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[emilynghiem]

People had very few rights under God. In the 1600s they put you in the stocks if you missed church. In Spain the Inquisition didn't consider your rights.. so what the hell are you talking about?

^ people didn't respect the rights of others . Doesn't mean those rights and laws in nature don't exist.

As for Govt defending rights, this reflects an evolutionary process.

Look at the Reformation movement as a historic model .

The Catholic authority had a monopoly mixing church and state authority. Which got corrupted and abused for the benefits of the people in charge and wasnt reflecting, serving or representing the people universally only private interests.

When this changed, Luther started teaching people to read and follow laws for themselves directly and "becoming their own church" NOT relying on third party officials to dictate church policy.

Today we have this movement to teach people to read and enforce standards of law and become politically empowered to govern themselves where "people become the govt" directly not relying on politicians or judges to pontificate what is law or not.

That's why more and more people, even minority Black and Latino members of liberal led districts or populations call it "emancipation from the plantation" and leaving the Democratic party platform of relying on govt.

The people leaving the GOP also complain when those leaders in charge put party before serving the public interests.

We all have rights to defend our interests, whether you call it something else.

If Liberals don't call these natural rights, what do you call this process?

It's going on in the media and in parties that aren't regulated or required by govt.

So it isn't coming from that but from people.

People had very few rights under God. In the 1600s they put you in the stocks if you missed church. In Spain the Inquisition didn't consider your rights.. so what the hell are you talking about?

 

[emilynghiem]

Just have the government come to them accusing them of something they had nothing to do with.

Makes a believer in natural rights out of them every time.

Great point! How do we induce a similar reckoning on a collective scale where everyone can recognize this process?

How about this approach:
Can we form a petition to the Council of Governors, and heads of major political parties, plus the heads of Social media conglomerates and public radio TV:

We ask that people recognize political parties as the equivalent of political religions, organizations and creeds which govt cannot be abused to establish, prohibit, regulate or punish. But all people of all parties and creeds should be equally accommodated at every level of govt to prevent discrimination by Creed.

And we ask all parties to meet to address, list and resolve all issues causing discrimination by Creed in public policy so that the people can reach agreement on policies and only have govt implement reflect and enforce public agreements.

Any past abuses, violations debts or damages should also be addressed, and reach settlements to reimburse taxpayers for costs of wrongdoing.

And those agreeing to these standards ask other taxpayers and party members not to endorse any candidates or leaders who refuse to defend the equal rights and beliefs of other people and parties equally as their own. But to recognize that abusing party or media to "conspire to violate equal civil rights of others" should be treated as a felony crime where restitution for past violations is invested in solutions to prevent this abuse in the future.

And have members of various parties sign in support of either
* Constitutional Council to mediate conflicts between parties to recommend agreed solutions to govt officials
* Cooperative Council to address environmental and economic developments per district that is seeking emancipation from govt abuse
* Christian Council to bring together party leaders and members to resolve issues in private preventing them from collaborating on common agreed solutions to solve problems together

Where each signer can list their affiliation and a link to their webpage explaining their position or issues they wish to address

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, it appears you're using the wrong word. "right" is not the right word. Just because someone does something innately, doesn't mean it's a "right".

A "right" is something which gives you power taken from the power of those who have most of the power.

"Natural rights" have been a part of philosophy for quite a long time, but then so too has "God".
To me it seems pointless. You say you have the natural right to self defense. But this "natural right" does NOTHING. It doesn't mean you can defend yourself, it doesn't mean anything.

In theory you have a "natural right" to do everything, a "natural right" to kill other people, for example. Because it doesn't confer anything upon you.

Power is power. The ONLY WAY to keep some of that power is that other people respect that something exists and that you are entitled to that power. In the US there is a right to self defense, people recognize this as a Constitutional right. The government, the police, the armed forces especially accept this, so you can have this power.

In China they don't accept this. So you don't have this power. Simple as. Doesn't matter whether you or anyone else thinks there's a "natural right" to self defense at all.

The way one pastor put it:
It helps to distinguish Political freedom and Spiritual Freedom.

The Christians in China still exercise their spiritual freedom whether or not people in govt or parties believe in or respect the same.

frigidweirdo
How do you explain or what do you call the natural commitment of people in China to resist and rebuke govt and party oppression even if it costs them their lives?

I can never forget or "unsee" the video of a Chinese woman screaming out over social media that the Chinese Govt was killing them when the outbreak first caused mass shutdowns. She basically knew she would die regardless, so she used her last effort to speak out and send a last message through media to anyone who would hear it. Knowing it was illegal. Knowing she would die and never be heard from again.

What do you call that spirit in human nature that would exercise free speech and express beliefs and objections whether or not it's legal by their govt and even if it gets them permanently censored and killed.

Govt did not protect her free speech.
Govt did not require her to do that or require other people to respect it.

There is a natural existing process of democratic petitioning back and forth between people demanding justice and change for peace and humanity sake.

What do you call that?
Is it spiritual or natural, if it isn't political through govt, what do you call when people naturally protest and demand change because we perceive injustice and want to see justice and truth prevail?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

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.”

 

[my2¢]

This Natural Rights thing seems a whole lot like those "Sovereign Citizens" idiots that think crap like their natural right to travel means government can't require driver licenses and license plates. Stuff like the freedom to run your car through a Christmas parade because one isn't under any state's or local government's jurisdiction.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 influence 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.”

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!

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

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!

Asking questions of one another certainly has its merits in encouraging productive discussion. But defining or agreeing on terms is also important. You seem to have some rather unusual political / ideological / religious beliefs. Your “Constitutionalist / Universalist” self designation had confused me until I saw you explained things in terms of Christian epistemology. You seem to assert that “statism” is a common enemy … which probably means something very different to different people here.

I got a kick out of reading this part of your comment:

“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.”

To be honest, this is not the sort of thing that I bother my head about, or consider very relevant in this day and age. Just saying …

 

[easyt65]

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.

You don't waste your time trying to explain.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The way one pastor put it:
It helps to distinguish Political freedom and Spiritual Freedom.

The Christians in China still exercise their spiritual freedom whether or not people in govt or parties believe in or respect the same.

frigidweirdo
How do you explain or what do you call the natural commitment of people in China to resist and rebuke govt and party oppression even if it costs them their lives?

I can never forget or "unsee" the video of a Chinese woman screaming out over social media that the Chinese Govt was killing them when the outbreak first caused mass shutdowns. She basically knew she would die regardless, so she used her last effort to speak out and send a last message through media to anyone who would hear it. Knowing it was illegal. Knowing she would die and never be heard from again.

What do you call that spirit in human nature that would exercise free speech and express beliefs and objections whether or not it's legal by their govt and even if it gets them permanently censored and killed.

Govt did not protect her free speech.
Govt did not require her to do that or require other people to respect it.

There is a natural existing process of democratic petitioning back and forth between people demanding justice and change for peace and humanity sake.

What do you call that?
Is it spiritual or natural, if it isn't political through govt, what do you call when people naturally protest and demand change because we perceive injustice and want to see justice and truth prevail?

Well, "spiritual freedom" isn't anything, is it? Seems like a bunch of religious people trying to justify religion by making up something that doesn't exist to prove that something else made up exists.

Like me saying "Harry Potter exists because Quidditch is a real thing"

What would I call someone getting angry and attacking someone else? A fight for power. She had a certain amount of power to say things. But this power is nothing because the government slapped her down for it. You don't even know if this woman existed or not. You don't know what happened to her. She could have just been someone's fiction.

She didn't have "free speech", she wasn't free to say what she said. If she existed and if she did what you say, she just said something. It was illegal to say this thing, therefore she had not "free-"anything. Then she was censured for it and most Chinese people have no idea she even said it, so after she had not "free speech" either.

So, she had power to use her vocal cords and power to use a video camera and the government used the power to make her disappear. How much power did this woman have? None. She didn't impact China, she didn't change the course of events.

People have brains, most people are "needs and wants" people. They only do what they feel they need to do (eat, drink, sleep, fuck, pee, poop, work) and what they want to do (fuck, eat, drink, play video games, play mahjiang, get angry).

Lots of people get angry, lots of people say something, but why does something so basic as talking, which 99.9999% of humans do, need to be called "Natural rights"?

As far as I can see EVERYTHING is a natural right. So what's the point of even giving it a label?

 

[The Duke]

Well this is just a nonsense. There is no "inalienable" right that your govt cannot remove.

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

 

[The Duke]

Prove it.

Come fuck with me. You'll FAAFO real quick, no government is going to stop me from defending myself against threats.
I'm American.

 

[The Duke]

Well, "spiritual freedom" isn't anything, is it? Seems like a bunch of religious people trying to justify religion by making up something that doesn't exist to prove that something else made up exists.

Like me saying "Harry Potter exists because Quidditch is a real thing"

What would I call someone getting angry and attacking someone else? A fight for power. She had a certain amount of power to say things. But this power is nothing because the government slapped her down for it. You don't even know if this woman existed or not. You don't know what happened to her. She could have just been someone's fiction.

She didn't have "free speech", she wasn't free to say what she said. If she existed and if she did what you say, she just said something. It was illegal to say this thing, therefore she had not "free-"anything. Then she was censured for it and most Chinese people have no idea she even said it, so after she had not "free speech" either.

So, she had power to use her vocal cords and power to use a video camera and the government used the power to make her disappear. How much power did this woman have? None. She didn't impact China, she didn't change the course of events.

People have brains, most people are "needs and wants" people. They only do what they feel they need to do (eat, drink, sleep, fuck, pee, poop, work) and what they want to do (fuck, eat, drink, play video games, play mahjiang, get angry).

Lots of people get angry, lots of people say something, but why does something so basic as talking, which 99.9999% of humans do, need to be called "Natural rights"?

As far as I can see EVERYTHING is a natural right. So what's the point of even giving it a label?

You're straight out of Orwell's "1984", weirdo. Whereas this is my version of 1984:
(And Van Halen's too)




Back then I was shooting my friend's dad's Luger back in the swamp using German ammo in a purple box.

 

[The Duke]

I go to sleep every night and sleep just fine.

Anyway this where this bullshit always falls apart. Sky Daddy and Mother Nature didn't sprinkle you with Natural Rights and no one is inclined to believe that nonsense until you bring some evidence.

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?

 

[emilynghiem]

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 influence 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.”

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!

Well, "spiritual freedom" isn't anything, is it? Seems like a bunch of religious people trying to justify religion by making up something that doesn't exist to prove that something else made up exists.

Like me saying "Harry Potter exists because Quidditch is a real thing"

What would I call someone getting angry and attacking someone else? A fight for power. She had a certain amount of power to say things. But this power is nothing because the government slapped her down for it. You don't even know if this woman existed or not. You don't know what happened to her. She could have just been someone's fiction.

She didn't have "free speech", she wasn't free to say what she said. If she existed and if she did what you say, she just said something. It was illegal to say this thing, therefore she had not "free-"anything. Then she was censured for it and most Chinese people have no idea she even said it, so after she had not "free speech" either.

So, she had power to use her vocal cords and power to use a video camera and the government used the power to make her disappear. How much power did this woman have? None. She didn't impact China, she didn't change the course of events.

People have brains, most people are "needs and wants" people. They only do what they feel they need to do (eat, drink, sleep, fuck, pee, poop, work) and what they want to do (fuck, eat, drink, play video games, play mahjiang, get angry).

Lots of people get angry, lots of people say something, but why does something so basic as talking, which 99.9999% of humans do, need to be called "Natural rights"?

As far as I can see EVERYTHING is a natural right. So what's the point of even giving it a label?

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.