What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Care4all]

i say it never can become one because of the filibuster in the Senate....this is what prevents the tyranny of the minority.

Also, because of the separate Supreme Court, anything unconstitutional can be knocked down....

That hasn't been working out so well since the beginning of the nation.

IT is NOT perfect, that is for certain...

 

[rubberhead]

i say it never can become one because of the filibuster in the Senate....this is what prevents the tyranny of the minority.

Also, because of the separate Supreme Court, anything unconstitutional can be knocked down....

That hasn't been working out so well since the beginning of the nation.

Agreed. Our constitution has been shat upon from all sides since the beginning. More so in the 20th and 21st cent.

 

[Intense]

i say it never can become one because of the filibuster in the Senate....this is what prevents the tyranny of the minority.

Also, because of the separate Supreme Court, anything unconstitutional can be knocked down....

We are a Constitutional Republic. All Federal Law is based on that.

The Filibuster does not Guarantee Anything. It Promotes the Larger number from bringing legislation to the Floor for a vote in the Senate, against the will of the smaller number, without having the Super Majority. This is not a Constitutional Rule though, but within the Power of the Senate to Keep or Change as it wills. This is a Power of The Senate.

The Court is Free to Interpret and define as it pleases on the both sides of reason. This complicates things, being a Constructed Power, I don't believe You will find anything about this in The Federalist Papers, if anything, language to the contrary. Judge Marshal conveyed the weakest link in the Federal Authority, to the Final Word on Interpretation and Intent.

 

[Intense]

our government is not set up for a pure democracy, it can NEVER become one....

a republic, means a country without a Monarch at head....a republic CAN HAVE A DICTATOR AS HEAD and many do.

we are however, operating as a representative democracy...our representatives are elected on pure majority vote, our us senators are elected on a mere majority vote, our State representatives are elected on mere majority vote, and our mayors and governors all on mere majority of the people....

our president is elected by the majority vote in each state, translated in to state electors casting their vote, so a democratically elected representative...the electoral college votes for him.... if 94% of americans voted for a Hitler, as you nicely implied, we would still have hitler elected, even in this Republic of ours, so i guess i don't see your point, at all....???

care

There was a time when Constitutional Amendment was Necessary to add Powers, to Empower. Now the Courts do it. We live by Rule of Law, not Majority Rule. There is a difference. It would benefit those around you , for you to realize the potential there. Conscience first makes a difference too. Try it sometime. View it as a First Commandment! God first in all things.

we do live by rule of law...

and the judicial activism is just as great or greater from republican leaning judiciary if you can see past partisan-ism.

the majority vote of our representatives MAKES the LAW intense....the minority vote will never ''make the rule of law'' that we follow.

the majority is not some kind of SIN in our representative Democratic Republic , it is PART of it!

Removing Politics from the Court in an Imaginary Way.... Does it at all strike you as strange that some of the Most significant rulings of these Noble Jurists are generally split 5/4?

If They are so Wise and Noble, why on Earth are The Decisions more Refined and Harmonious? Where are the Shut Out Unanimous Rulings? They are All looking at the same Testimony?

Think Oligarchy, 1984, George Orwell. In Our System, the Few decide for the many. Follow the Money, and know this, The Biggest Money is Tied in to Government Operation in one way or another. Justice is From God, We can only hope to touch on it or imitate.

 

[rubberhead]

Well if it's defining, it's defining... thus a definition. I see your point... but such serves as a rationalization to avoid DEFINING MORALITY...

Not really, but let's move on already.

As in the Judea-Christian Ethos of Morality... Which the a- and the anti-theist reject. Thus the notion that 'Theism is not essential to Morality' is false. You simply want to plug in your own rationalization of morality and are desperate to avoid defining such, because where such is defined, it requires judgment and that gets a little prickly. Which is why Duir has suddenly found a reticent streak on the issue.

She knows damn good and well that where she answers the challenge posed, she's done in terms of credibility on the whole "I don't need God to me moral..." thing.

I wish I were a she, cuz then I'd have titties that I could play with.

Got it... You want to define what a morality is, without defining what Morality actually is... perfectly clear.

But when ya stack the relativist notion of morality, up against those with a specific ethos, your desired cooperation thing turns ugly; promoting that 'war' thing you seem so prone to lament.

Well what makes like easier is where people agree on acceptable behavior, that's for sure. But stating that you believe in Morality doesn't an agreement make. You may, for instance believe it's perfectly acceptable to use the Government to subsidize your life at the expense of another... thus imparting yourself as a burden to someone who has absolutely no moral responsibility for your sorry ass what so ever. Again... such is the morality formula for those wars you seem so sensitive to.

You can't say I didn't try to define morality. The plurality of religions has shown time and time again that the friction between religions (different moral codes) does lead to violence. It's not just me that laments 'war.' I think it's anyone who has lost something during 'war'. I don't know why you're putting war in quotes. Is it for irony? I don't see it.

I don't believe that tax revenue should be used to give me a free ride, yet you continue to paint me with that brush. Are you thinking of someone else?

Well, at the minimum, God gave us the means to reason, so as to observe our surrounding environment and deduce from our experience what works and what doesn't... So it's incorrect to say that god hasn't provided us with the means to know his will...

That's why I said that God hasn't told us directly

add the scriptures to that and it's a hands down "God's all over it..."

Which ones? The ones you read, or the evil scriptures of those various heathens who believe that their religion is just as valid as yours?

The Creator endows the gift of life... with that life, the inherent rights to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's right; and to defend one's means to exercise that right and that of their neighbor.

Where everyone recognizes, respects and maintains the responsibilities intrinsic with those rights... there is no means to or potential for, failure.

I agree with all of this. We probably don't agree on who the Creator is, but that's hardly important.

Yet he did... that you fail to credit him with your means to reason doesn't change that.

OK, I was born with the means to reason and I thank Nature/God for that. God didn't tell me anything directly. That's what I mean by that.

Then you haven't lived hard enough friend... Life is a *****... it is HARD and REALITY SUCKS! What is the point of suffering through this existance if this is all there is? If this is it... there is NOTHING that can make the burden of this life worth it. Nothing...

My life's been a ***** sometimes, but even with that I can look back and feel proud that I survived the tough times and that they made me stronger and wiser. Mortal life is the gift.

"If you know what life is worth, you will look for yours on Earth." -Bob Marley

"If you waste your whole life looking forward to the end, at least you will not live long enough to be disappointed." -God

It doesn't scare me... Been there, done that... it's the easiest thing there is. You move out fo this life into the next, just as if you were walking through your front door.

Easy to say until you're faced with it. I don't mean like when you get diagnosed with cancer and they give you 6 months. I mean when you're staring down the barrel of a gun and you know it's over. If you are a human being you are scared. Period. Why? Because you don't know what's going to happen to your consciousness. You can spend your whole life convincing yourself that you do know what awaits us in the next life (if there is one), but that doesn't mean that you actually do know. However, if it affects your behavior in a way that benefits everyone, then it's not a bad thing.

If I buy a house in your name... does that make it your house? Are you responsible for it? Some would say ya are... but I say that they're full of shit. Which is my position on those who start wars or kill others in the name of God.

This analogy doesn't really work. For one, you and I are equals. If I consented to you buying a house in my name for some reason, then I would be consenting to accepting responsibility for the house. This is the only way I can think of for you to buy a house in my name. Unless somehow you steal my identity and then buy the house under an assumed identity. Are you saying that people can just steal God's identity? It's good to know that God has some of the same problems that we humans have.

Man invented God and thus can manipulate His image to their own ends

No sir, man did not create God... Period. And the assertion that such is the case is pure conjecture, of the baseless varierty.

No less baseless than the conjecture that God exists. Actually, far less baseless because we have all of this evidence of human writing and art about various Gods all of whose images have been manipulated by industrious demagogues all throughout history to achieve both laudable and detestable ends.

 

[Diuretic]

Just thought you'd slip that in at the end eh? I argue that there is no need for society if you have no rights upon joining it.

What kind of a society is it if you have no rights? Is that a society at all?

The want for the guarantee of ones rights is the motivation for being part of a society. Indeed protecting the rights of one another seems to be the reason for organizing into groups at all.

So which came first? The chicken or the egg? Society or rights?

I have been arguing that 'natural' rights are the ones that result in a minimal social pressure if guaranteed.

Let me pose a question:

In a society where some do not have rights, are those people with no rights still considered members of that society?

If you believe that society can exist without rights, then you should be able to answer this question.

I write as I think it - the bit at the end just came to me.

No need for a society? Need is irrelevant, society just is. As for rights on joining it - provided the joining is consensual, authorised, legitimate etc. there would be social rights for the member.

The existence of a society doesn't depend on its members having rights. I wouldn't want to live there though

Rights aren't a reason for societies, they're produced by societies.

Since societies produce rights, societies came first.

Lack of rights doesn't signify non-membership of a society. A slave can be a member of a society in the broadest sense of "society", he or she isn't a citizen but they can be a member of society. That's a status issue, not a membership issue.

I think we disagree on the definition of society then. Oh well, we don't have to agree. I don't think society just 'is'. It's a huge stretch to say society just exists. I think society is a good strategy when it maximizes well-being of all involved. You haven't shown that societies create rights, maybe you think it's obvious. I think it's obvious that people are born with their rights and organize into societies to make sure that their rights can be protected.

A solitary individual in a state of nature is not a society. Agreed?

Two solitary individuals in a state of nature who agree to combine for mutual support are just a pair of mutually supporting individuals. I think when the numbers get a little higher that there is a form of proto-society. That's when relationships between individuals in that grouping become more than implicit as they can be in a two-person grouping and have to be more explicit. The production of explicit rules of relationship is the beginning of the development of rights.

People aren't born with rights, I have to disagree with that. People are born with the potential to become adult human beings, there is no innate concept of rights in a simple biological fact. Rights don't exist outside of human society. I know I'm repeating myself but as yet I haven't been dissuaded otherwise.

To the argument that humans have rights given to them by a supernatural creator I have to say that while I can point to the existence of human society and human behaviour in individuals and collectively, the supernatural creator is an assumption only and has little evidentiary value simply because it is an assumption.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I write as I think it - the bit at the end just came to me.

No need for a society? Need is irrelevant, society just is. As for rights on joining it - provided the joining is consensual, authorised, legitimate etc. there would be social rights for the member.

The existence of a society doesn't depend on its members having rights. I wouldn't want to live there though

Rights aren't a reason for societies, they're produced by societies.

Since societies produce rights, societies came first.

Lack of rights doesn't signify non-membership of a society. A slave can be a member of a society in the broadest sense of "society", he or she isn't a citizen but they can be a member of society. That's a status issue, not a membership issue.

I think we disagree on the definition of society then. Oh well, we don't have to agree. I don't think society just 'is'. It's a huge stretch to say society just exists. I think society is a good strategy when it maximizes well-being of all involved. You haven't shown that societies create rights, maybe you think it's obvious. I think it's obvious that people are born with their rights and organize into societies to make sure that their rights can be protected.

A solitary individual in a state of nature is not a society. Agreed?

Two solitary individuals in a state of nature who agree to combine for mutual support are just a pair of mutually supporting individuals. I think when the numbers get a little higher that there is a form of proto-society. That's when relationships between individuals in that grouping become more than implicit as they can be in a two-person grouping and have to be more explicit. The production of explicit rules of relationship is the beginning of the development of rights.

People aren't born with rights, I have to disagree with that. People are born with the potential to become adult human beings, there is no innate concept of rights in a simple biological fact. Rights don't exist outside of human society. I know I'm repeating myself but as yet I haven't been dissuaded otherwise.

To the argument that humans have rights given to them by a supernatural creator I have to say that while I can point to the existence of human society and human behaviour in individuals and collectively, the supernatural creator is an assumption only and has little evidentiary value simply because it is an assumption.

My MY! Look at the desperation to declare as fact that rights do not exist at birth!

Ya see kids... where Rights DO exist outside the permission of the cult in question, Leftism is DOA.

Thus it is imperative that such notions be rejected; otherwise one's free healthcare and other such Nannystate niceties are kaput...

Again... let the record reflect that this individual has consistantly refused now 6 times, to answer questions which are rooted directly from her own stated positions.

And the reason being that she wants to stand on the premise that "God isn't essential to Morality" so as to color humanism being at equity with theist ethos...

Now to accept her premise, all one has to do, is define morality down to that which is roughly meaningless.

Which FTR, is the same species of reasoning on which "Leftists are Americans" rests. Just define America down to mean absolutely nothing and PRESTO! Everything is American.

The simple fact is, that "Rights" are those things to which one is rightfully entitled... Now if one is rightfully entitled to something, then the permission of another is irrelevant, isn't it?

What Diur here wants you to believe, is that you're rightfully entitled to whatever the Government says you're rightfully entitled to... and when the government changes their mind... then youre no longer rightfully entitled to it.

Which necessarily means, that in point of fact; you never were rightfully entitled to it at all... you merely had the permission of that power to possess it, engage in it and so on... for a time.

So yet again we find that the Left is selling 'fake rights...' Otherwise known as Lies... Which should come as a suprise to no one... as that is the nature of evil; now isn't it?

 

[Diuretic]

So many words. So little to say. FFS Pub, you are simply blathering.

 

[Diuretic]

Now, Pub, if you are capable of asking a straight question then do so. A straight question is one bereft of the bullshit that you usually spray around to obfuscate the fact that your reasoning is on shaky ground.

So strip the rhetorical crap out of your posting style long enough to send me a zinger that will flatten me once and for all in this thread.

That or give it a rest. Your choice.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So many words. So little to say. FFS Pub, you are simply blathering.

Ahh.. So the premise is that what the Left says is insightful, credible and sustainable... A valuable contribution.

But without regard to the content; without citation of any principle which proves otherwise... with no advancement of any basis in reasoning of that which discredits or refutes Left-think... the same empty assertions that vaccuously proclaim "Rights are what the State says they are!" declare such contests as representing just 'blather.'

Notice the trend kids? See how shallow their reasoning is? It's the common trait of all other lies... scratch the surface and they're exposed; thoroughly discredited... to which their only potential response is the tired rejoinder: 'Nuh uh...'

 

[Diuretic]

Thought so.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Now, Pub, if you are capable of asking a straight question then do so. A straight question is one bereft of the bullshit that you usually spray around to obfuscate the fact that your reasoning is on shaky ground.

So strip the rhetorical crap out of your posting style long enough to send me a zinger that will flatten me once and for all in this thread.

That or give it a rest. Your choice.

Well Sis, I decide how I write... you decide how you respond...

Here's the last post I directed to you... respond or concede to the point... There's no third option.

There's no potential to ignore it and enjoy some status reserved to respondents... fail to respond, and you concede... Fail to address the point and you concede; fail to offer an intellectually sound, logically valid, well reasoned, cogent argument which speaks to the issue at hand; and you concede...

Now as it stands you ignored this 6 times, thus demonstrating you've no means to answer it; thus conceding to the argument; which granted is by simple default... but that is the best one can do when the opposition refuses to provide greater means.

Coloring your failure through empty rationalizations doesn't change it from a failure; at best it simply dresses up your failure to appear to be something else; and contrary to popular belief... perception is NOT reality; reality is reality.

So I ask you ONCE MORE... and purely to demonstrate your failure; to humiliate you and to discredit your entire anti-theist ideology... your religion:

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

Be specific...

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrift on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existence.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blip of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty established by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace... thus any good that you managed; any 'bad' that you advanced... will be as if it never occurred...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, for the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride herself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

My MY! Look at the desperation to declare as fact that rights do not exist at birth!

Ya see kids... where Rights DO exist outside the permission of the cult in question, Leftism is DOA.

Thus it is imperative that such notions be rejected; otherwise one's free healthcare and other such Nannystate niceties are kaput...

Again... let the record reflect that this individual has consistantly refused now 6 times, to answer questions which are rooted directly from her own stated positions.

And the reason being that she wants to stand on the premise that "God isn't essential to Morality" so as to color humanism being at equity with theist ethos...

Now to accept her premise, all one has to do, is define morality down to that which is roughly meaningless.

Which FTR, is the same species of reasoning on which "Leftists are Americans" rests. Just define America down to mean absolutely nothing and PRESTO! Everything is American.

The simple fact is, that "Rights" are those things to which one is rightfully entitled... Now if one is rightfully entitled to something, then the permission of another is irrelevant, isn't it?

What Diur here wants you to believe, is that you're rightfully entitled to whatever the Government says you're rightfully entitled to... and when the government changes their mind... then youre no longer rightfully entitled to it.

Which necessarily means, that in point of fact; you never were rightfully entitled to it at all... you merely had the permission of that power to possess it, engage in it and so on... for a time.

So yet again we find that the Left is selling 'fake rights...' Otherwise known as Lies... Which should come as a suprise to no one... as that is the nature of evil; now isn't it?

So many words. So little to say. FFS Pub, you are simply blathering.

Ahh.. So the premise is that what the Left says is insightful, credible and sustainable... A valuable contribution.

But without regard to the content; without citation of any principle which proves otherwise... with no advancement of any basis in reasoning of that which discredits or refutes Left-think... the same empty assertions that proclaim "Rights are what the State says they are!" is just 'blather.'

Notice the trend kids? See how shallow their reasoning is? It's the common trait of all other lies... scratch the surface and they're exposed; thoroughly discredited... to which their only potential response is the tired rejoinder: 'Nuh uh...'

Thought so.

Well there ya have it...

Now the mistake which is commonly made here is that Diur; or the Leftist at hand, is a poor example of the species. That the failure of their reasoning is limited to the individual...

But in truth, Diur here is typical of the species... Her failure is in no way distinct from what would be the failure of any leftist; as her response is hardly distinct from what would be the failure of any of her more notable comrades.

Were this argument posed to The BOY King, either Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Fwank, Schumer, Biden, Conyers, Waters, Sanders, any legislator from Minnesota... Khadafy, Ahmadinejad, Chaves, either Castro, the honorable Reverend Wright, Vann Jones, Cass Sunstein... or the summed collective of the group... the failure would be the same.

They're fools in the entirety... which isn't to say that they're stupid. But they're liars... and where their words are fixed in the record; where they are unable to gasp their deep-thoughts into the ether and later declare those thoughts as having been misrepresented... where what they say is planted on the bedrock of the record... their means to advance their deceitful agenda is DEAD ON ARRIVAL!

Diur would love to have offered a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound, cogent argument... but there exist no where in the universe such an argument. And that the State might declare such does exist... that doesn't change the simple fact that is the intellectual void which represents their feelings in this and most other issues.

And that is the nature of immutable principle and the fate of deceit which contests that principle.

 

[Diuretic]

Again with the blather. You're not even trying to make a point Pub.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

My MY! Look at the desperation to declare as fact that rights do not exist at birth!

Ya see kids... where Rights DO exist outside the permission of the cult in question, Leftism is DOA.

Thus it is imperative that such notions be rejected; otherwise one's free healthcare and other such Nannystate niceties are kaput...

Again... let the record reflect that this individual has consistantly refused now 6 times, to answer questions which are rooted directly from her own stated positions.

And the reason being that she wants to stand on the premise that "God isn't essential to Morality" so as to color humanism being at equity with theist ethos...

Now to accept her premise, all one has to do, is define morality down to that which is roughly meaningless.

Which FTR, is the same species of reasoning on which "Leftists are Americans" rests. Just define America down to mean absolutely nothing and PRESTO! Everything is American.

The simple fact is, that "Rights" are those things to which one is rightfully entitled... Now if one is rightfully entitled to something, then the permission of another is irrelevant, isn't it?

What Diur here wants you to believe, is that you're rightfully entitled to whatever the Government says you're rightfully entitled to... and when the government changes their mind... then youre no longer rightfully entitled to it.

Which necessarily means, that in point of fact; you never were rightfully entitled to it at all... you merely had the permission of that power to possess it, engage in it and so on... for a time.

So yet again we find that the Left is selling 'fake rights...' Otherwise known as Lies... Which should come as a suprise to no one... as that is the nature of evil; now isn't it?

So many words. So little to say. FFS Pub, you are simply blathering.

Ahh.. So the premise is that what the Left says is insightful, credible and sustainable... A valuable contribution.

But without regard to the content; without citation of any principle which proves otherwise... with no advancement of any basis in reasoning of that which discredits or refutes Left-think... the same empty assertions that proclaim "Rights are what the State says they are!" is just 'blather.'

Notice the trend kids? See how shallow their reasoning is? It's the common trait of all other lies... scratch the surface and they're exposed; thoroughly discredited... to which their only potential response is the tired rejoinder: 'Nuh uh...'

Thought so.

Well there ya have it...

Now the mistake which is commonly made here is that Diur; or the Leftist at hand, is a poor example of the species. That the failure of their reasoning is limited to the individual...

But in truth, Diur here is typical of the species... Her failure is in no way distinct from what would be the failure of any leftist; as her response is hardly distinct from what would be the failure of any of her more notable comrades.

Were this argument posed to The BOY King, either Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Fwank, Schumer, Biden, Conyers, Waters, Sanders, any legislator from Minnesota... Khadafy, Ahmadinejad, Chaves, either Castro, the honorable Reverend Wright, Vann Jones, Cass Sunstein... or the summed collective of the group... the failure would be the same.

They're fools in the entirety... which isn't to say that they're stupid. But they're liars... and where their words are fixed in the record; where they are unable to gasp their deep-thoughts into the ether and later declare those thoughts as having been misrepresented... where what they say is planted on the bedrock of the record... their means to advance their deceitful agenda is DEAD ON ARRIVAL!

Diur would love to have offered a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound, cogent argument... but there exist no where in the universe such an argument. And that the State might declare such does exist... that doesn't change the simple fact that is the intellectual void which represents their feelings in this and most other issues.

And that is the nature of immutable principle and the fate of deceit which contests that principle.

Again with the blather. You're not even trying to make a point Pub.

Yet, despite the apparent lack of effort... the natural order provides that the point is, nonetheles, being made...

And such is but one of the innumerable benefits of standing upon the bedrock, in defense of immutable principle.

Ain't Nature grand?

 

[Intense]

Diuretic, What amazes me is that Anyone in Australia being so remote, even considering the history of your Country with England, could be so far removed from Natural Law, and Natural Rights. You will always be limited to what Others dictate that You may have or Keep, or Use, until You Open both Your Eyes and Your Mind. You are Your Own Being. Think about that. You exist as an Individual first, and have nothing of Value to contribute until You Live Self Reliance. You need to be able to stand with the Group and You need to learn to Stand alone when Truth Requires it. Then You have Something to Share out of Conviction. Until You understand the Value of Standing for What You believe to be True, against the Flow of the Mob, You have no Moral Compass, worth contributing. It is damaged goods, damaged for the Expediency of the Totalitarian. I pray You get it, with or without recognizing It's Source. You put not just Yourself, but Everyone around You at the Mercy of Tyranny, by Your Denial of Self, with Your Own Consent, The Dictator's Fantasy and Dream.

 

[rubberhead]

A solitary individual in a state of nature is not a society. Agreed?

Two solitary individuals in a state of nature who agree to combine for mutual support are just a pair of mutually supporting individuals. I think when the numbers get a little higher that there is a form of proto-society. That's when relationships between individuals in that grouping become more than implicit as they can be in a two-person grouping and have to be more explicit. The production of explicit rules of relationship is the beginning of the development of rights.

People aren't born with rights, I have to disagree with that. People are born with the potential to become adult human beings, there is no innate concept of rights in a simple biological fact. Rights don't exist outside of human society. I know I'm repeating myself but as yet I haven't been dissuaded otherwise.

To the argument that humans have rights given to them by a supernatural creator I have to say that while I can point to the existence of human society and human behaviour in individuals and collectively, the supernatural creator is an assumption only and has little evidentiary value simply because it is an assumption.

We already went through this.

A solitary individual is not a society. Any number of individuals who never cooperate and always compete is not a society. Right? Those individuals, having the ability to do so, will tend to spread out to the point where they have minimal interaction with their competitors. What effect does this have? They protect their lives. They maximize their freedom. They claim territory. Are they asserting their rights? Probably not in their minds. They're probably just doing what they need to do to survive. Ultimately this is each person's right: To do what is necessary to ensure survival.

Remember, since no one is cooperating it is not a society but still all are behaving in a manner consistent with asserting their rights. Can you present another outcome of this situation? Here are the parameters again:

1) Say 1,000 individuals who are in complete competition - i.e. they never cooperate
2) there is enough space for them to all spread out and have no contact with one another
3) resources are homogeneously distributed - there is no place where they are forced to go and interact
4) they are all equally physically and mentally well-endowed - if one decides to plunder from others they won't improve their chances of survival because it will require just as much if not more work to steal than it will to gather their own resources. Also, since there are no surpluses there is not much to steal.

 

[Diuretic]

Diuretic, What amazes me is that Anyone in Australia being so remote, even considering the history of your Country with England, could be so far removed from Natural Law, and Natural Rights. You will always be limited to what Others dictate that You may have or Keep, or Use, until You Open both Your Eyes and Your Mind. You are Your Own Being. Think about that. You exist as an Individual first, and have nothing of Value to contribute until You Live Self Reliance. You need to be able to stand with the Group and You need to learn to Stand alone when Truth Requires it. Then You have Something to Share out of Conviction. Until You understand the Value of Standing for What You believe to be True, against the Flow of the Mob, You have no Moral Compass, worth contributing. It is damaged goods, damaged for the Expediency of the Totalitarian. I pray You get it, with or without recognizing It's Source. You put not just Yourself, but Everyone around You at the Mercy of Tyranny, by Your Denial of Self, with Your Own Consent, The Dictator's Fantasy and Dream.

Intense - I'm always alert for the slightest indication of totalitarianism. I may not subscribe to others' ideas about natural law and natural rights but I've spent my career defending and protecting social rights and talking and thinking about them. My moral compass is functional - and also nice and shiny

 

[Navy1960]

Here is a thought, each and every human being on this planet will eventually die. It is a natural process of life.

Right;
10 : acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>

So given the fact that everyone will die and each of act according to this fact is this not a natural right that cannot be taken away? So it's not a stretch of the imagination that when each of are born that we are created equal based on that fact. The only thing that interfere's with "rights" is a Govt. that is willing to take them away from you save one for the moment and I don't see them being able to stave off that one for too long at least for now.

 

[Diuretic]

A solitary individual in a state of nature is not a society. Agreed?

Two solitary individuals in a state of nature who agree to combine for mutual support are just a pair of mutually supporting individuals. I think when the numbers get a little higher that there is a form of proto-society. That's when relationships between individuals in that grouping become more than implicit as they can be in a two-person grouping and have to be more explicit. The production of explicit rules of relationship is the beginning of the development of rights.

People aren't born with rights, I have to disagree with that. People are born with the potential to become adult human beings, there is no innate concept of rights in a simple biological fact. Rights don't exist outside of human society. I know I'm repeating myself but as yet I haven't been dissuaded otherwise.

To the argument that humans have rights given to them by a supernatural creator I have to say that while I can point to the existence of human society and human behaviour in individuals and collectively, the supernatural creator is an assumption only and has little evidentiary value simply because it is an assumption.

We already went through this.

A solitary individual is not a society. Any number of individuals who never cooperate and always compete is not a society. Right? Those individuals, having the ability to do so, will tend to spread out to the point where they have minimal interaction with their competitors. What effect does this have? They protect their lives. They maximize their freedom. They claim territory. Are they asserting their rights? Probably not in their minds. They're probably just doing what they need to do to survive. Ultimately this is each person's right: To do what is necessary to ensure survival.

Remember, since no one is cooperating it is not a society but still all are behaving in a manner consistent with asserting their rights. Can you present another outcome of this situation? Here are the parameters again:

1) Say 1,000 individuals who are in complete competition - i.e. they never cooperate
2) there is enough space for them to all spread out and have no contact with one another
3) resources are homogeneously distributed - there is no place where they are forced to go and interact
4) they are all equally physically and mentally well-endowed - if one decides to plunder from others they won't improve their chances of survival because it will require just as much if not more work to steal than it will to gather their own resources. Also, since there are no surpluses there is not much to steal.

Your example applies to wild animals as much as it does to the humans you've placed in it. Both wild animals and humans adhere to the biological imperative. And that's all that's happening in your example. Just like wild animals humans living in isolated conditions in your example will respond to the biological imperative. Wild animals don't need rights, I think you might agree that they probably have no conception of rights. The humans in your example have no need of rights either. They are free to survive as they can.

No society, no rights.