What "rights" does nature give us?

[Sallow]

No, they are not the same folks.

Either way, the OP was deployed in an attempt to push beliefs. Sort of like the belief that life evolves randomly on earth. That's opinion. The same as it is to believe someones chosen god created life on earth.

Natural rights developed by the "progress" of man in his social environment is a concept designed to make every man a king instead of a subject to one. That men are equal. Even if man is hypocritical and does not always see every man as equal at the same time, and we have had to work on those social problems through history.

That's not opinion.

It's science.

Religion has a different perspective.

And the two don't agree.

Much of science is opinion...theory if I may.

As it pertains to the creation of the universe, all idewas are theory.

The Big Bang THEORY.

And besides.....ok....the Big Bang was the creation of the universe...ok...and what was it before the big bang? WHere did the big bang take place? What created the place that the big bang took place in?

Theory.

Like I posted.

Science and Religion don't agree.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, haven't you heard. It's the fact of evolution!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No.

I am saying rights are not natural or god given.

It's a pretty simple concept.

And when you folks yammer on about how bad our government is..and have to "right" to do so..

It should give you pause to think about exactly what you are railing against.

I don't remember ever saying I have a right to do anything but your argument is obviously that there are no rights because they can be taken away at any time.

It comes down to philosophy at this point.

I for one choose to believe that people have inalienable rights and the only restriction on exercising those rights is whether or not by exercising them one violates another's rights.

For example, your right to swing you fist ends at my nose.

You seem to disagree.

Rights are constructs of society and government.

So yeah..they can be taken away.

Were you to go on to a desert island with another fellow..and he hits you in the face...your recourse would be to hit back or run.

That's not true in a society.

so the right to force exists.....but the right to live does not....? pls explain...

 

[Sallow]

I don't remember ever saying I have a right to do anything but your argument is obviously that there are no rights because they can be taken away at any time.

It comes down to philosophy at this point.

I for one choose to believe that people have inalienable rights and the only restriction on exercising those rights is whether or not by exercising them one violates another's rights.

For example, your right to swing you fist ends at my nose.

You seem to disagree.

Rights are constructs of society and government.

So yeah..they can be taken away.

Were you to go on to a desert island with another fellow..and he hits you in the face...your recourse would be to hit back or run.

That's not true in a society.

so the right to force exists.....but the right to live does not....? pls explain...

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's not opinion.

It's science.

Religion has a different perspective.

And the two don't agree.

Much of science is opinion...theory if I may.

As it pertains to the creation of the universe, all idewas are theory.

The Big Bang THEORY.

And besides.....ok....the Big Bang was the creation of the universe...ok...and what was it before the big bang? WHere did the big bang take place? What created the place that the big bang took place in?

Theory.

Like I posted.

Science and Religion don't agree.

And it is still opinion. That was my point. You however, have apparently taken up science as religion. The global warming kooks will be glad to have you im sure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is the Declaration of Independence a Founding Document?

Natural rights, if they exist, would not have been invented by a small group of men in the 18th century.

Abortion is a natural right by the laws of nature that predate all modern fabrications of government.

Rhetoric....unless you can back it up.

What law(s) of nature makes abortion a natural right?

Now dont go on about how you can kill a fetus naturally....I know one can do that...that would make it a natural action..........but what makes it a natural RIGHT?

Ah, see,

now the various opinions of MEN come into deciding what are and aren't natural rights.

How is that dispute settled?

How can rights have come from the Creator, if they come from the decisions of MEN?

1. Men decide that rights came from the Creator

2. Men then decide, via their own invented decision-making process, what those rights are.

3. Thus is born the government of rights

4. Thus government, not the Creator, is the source of the rights.

 

[g5000]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

So there you are, a naked ape in the forest. You are free to piss on trees, scratch your nuts, fart in the wind, scream at clouds, and go wherever you please, and kill whatever you please with whatever you please. And whatever you manage to forage and stash, that's yours, and no one else's.

You find another naked ape that has parts that are soft where you are not, and you make more naked apes with her.

Eventually there are an awful lot of naked apes around.

You are free to choose whether or not to hang around all these other people or you can go off on your own and stake out your own territory and make it yours.

If you choose to stay with the others, they may approach you one day and say, "Uh, Sallow, we really can't have you walking around naked and scratching your nuts in public. It frightens the children and makes the other fellas jealous."

If you agree to abide by this request, you have entered into a social contract, with the understanding there will be consequences if you violate that contract.

Or you can tell them to jag off and go your own way.

Eventually, there are more people than property, and being able to go your own way is no longer a viable option. So all these people must enter into some kind of mutually agreeable social contract with each other. But the overriding understanding is that you have a God-given right to scratch your nuts and scream obscenities. However, certain sacrifices must be made to accommodate the rights of the others around you.

Some people are going to be more industrious than others, and eventually the distribution of property is going to be very uneven.

When there is no more "free" property about, a hard working person must have a means to acquire property. If there is no means to acquire property through labor, then that would be a violation of natural rights and the social contract, which is exactly what Jefferson observed in France during his time there. Which is why he became very engaged in ensuring an unnatural concentration of wealth did not occur in the US. This led to his advocacy of the elimination of primogeniture and the institution of progressive taxation.

 

[Jarhead]

That's not opinion.

It's science.

Religion has a different perspective.

And the two don't agree.

Much of science is opinion...theory if I may.

As it pertains to the creation of the universe, all idewas are theory.

The Big Bang THEORY.

And besides.....ok....the Big Bang was the creation of the universe...ok...and what was it before the big bang? WHere did the big bang take place? What created the place that the big bang took place in?

Theory.

Like I posted.

Science and Religion don't agree.

actually, it is how you said it that I took issue with.

You referred to a scientists theory as Science....but a religious belief as an opinion.

Now seeing as science can also be defined as something that is real, concrete and proven, it seems you are quick to give a theory the label that is the same as the label that you would give a proven fact....

SO I corrected you and made sure you realized that both religion AND the creation of the universe as believed by some scientists are both OPINIONS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Regardless, my freedom of speech doesn't hinge upon the assent of dour, petty little looters like you...It is mine as a product of my independent mind.

Then you shouldn't hesitate to refuse to pay your taxes.

Ah, the bravado of the self-righteous bully.


That my rights have been infringed upon by thugs does not mean that they don't exist....Besides that, I'm perfectly free to lawfully avoid being taxed by not participating in the activity being taxed.

Sure, you can live at your mom's house and use her stuff.

 

[Murf76]

I like the term natural rights - it denotes something that preexists any form of government and is not granted by a government. Such rights are the birth right of every human, even if the society in which he is born violates them.

Inalienable rights cannot be separated from the individual. They are possessed by the mere act of being a human being not to be given or taken away by government or society

And that's definitely not true.

Nelson Mandela's "liberty" was taken away from him for several decades.

^^^ This kind of shit right here is why people call you and your commie lot stupid.
No one has said that the natural rights of human beings can't be trod upon. Depriving a man of his life or his liberty doesn't mean that his "right" to those things didn't exist. THAT's why those sorts of actions are crimes.

You have to look at unalienable rights in the context of keeping the peace. What does it take for human beings to live together harmoniously? When you explore the question within that context, it's easy enough to see that predictable strife occurs when our rights are abrogated. You can't go to your neighbor's house and boldly take his property without expecting some trouble to come from it, some sort of retaliation. You can't falsely imprison people or make them slaves without consequence; the end of Apartheid, the U.S. Civil War. And why is that? ...It's because human beings are naturally inclined to be free and to protect their property.

What never fails to surprise me is just how shallow the reasoning powers of so-called liberals consistently remains. It's almost inhuman... like trained monkeys, aping human behavior, but never understanding or moved by it. You never seem to really ask yourselves "why", never really apply yourselves to the question. Sure, you started a thread, but you did it thinking that you could prove the tyranny of the mob, lead by your democratically anointed King, should be allowed to prevail over the most innate rights of human beings. And you think you've got John Locke by the balls over his writings on slavery, never realizing that all he managed to do was prove that his philosophy on human nature was correct. Abrogate the natural rights of human animals, tumult and strife ensues. As this applies to governance, people cannot live in the peace and harmony they are capable of when their natural rights are ignored or abrogated.

Go stick your own head in the yoke of slavery. There are quite a number of places you can do that on this planet. Leave the rest of us alone.

 

[SniperFire]

Natural rights, if they exist, would not have been invented by a small group of men in the 18th century.

Abortion is a natural right by the laws of nature that predate all modern fabrications of government.

Rhetoric....unless you can back it up.

What law(s) of nature makes abortion a natural right?

Now dont go on about how you can kill a fetus naturally....I know one can do that...that would make it a natural action..........but what makes it a natural RIGHT?

Ah, see,

now the various opinions of MEN come into deciding what are and aren't natural rights.

How is that dispute settled?

How can rights have come from the Creator, if they come from the decisions of MEN?

1. Men decide that rights came from the Creator

2. Men then decide, via their own invented decision-making process, what those rights are.

3. Thus is born the government of rights

4. Thus government, not the Creator, is the source of the rights.

If you reference our Founding documents, you will quickly see that America was founded on the acknowledgement that our rights are intrinsic and granted by the Creator.

 

[Sallow]

Much of science is opinion...theory if I may.

As it pertains to the creation of the universe, all idewas are theory.

The Big Bang THEORY.

And besides.....ok....the Big Bang was the creation of the universe...ok...and what was it before the big bang? WHere did the big bang take place? What created the place that the big bang took place in?

Theory.

Like I posted.

Science and Religion don't agree.

And it is still opinion. That was my point. You however, have apparently taken up science as religion. The global warming kooks will be glad to have you im sure.

Well no.

Science is not opinion. It's observation.

 

[Koios]

Much of science is opinion...theory if I may.

As it pertains to the creation of the universe, all idewas are theory.

The Big Bang THEORY.

And besides.....ok....the Big Bang was the creation of the universe...ok...and what was it before the big bang? WHere did the big bang take place? What created the place that the big bang took place in?

Theory.

Like I posted.

Science and Religion don't agree.

And it is still opinion. That was my point. You however, have apparently taken up science as religion. The global warming kooks will be glad to have you im sure.

Indeed, but a concensus of the most knowleable in the field of study. Moreover, for a "theory" to be valid ALL KNOWN FACTS must be taken into consideration, which is unique in science, and no religion comes near to doing, since religions are mere beliefs (dogma) and science uses the null hypothesis, insuring a vastly greater understanding of what is, as opposed to what we might like to think it is.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Rights are constructs of society and government.

So yeah..they can be taken away.

Were you to go on to a desert island with another fellow..and he hits you in the face...your recourse would be to hit back or run.

That's not true in a society.

so the right to force exists.....but the right to live does not....? pls explain...

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

why not.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to kill to eat.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to defend itself.....?

 

[konradv]

Rhetoric....unless you can back it up.

What law(s) of nature makes abortion a natural right?

Now dont go on about how you can kill a fetus naturally....I know one can do that...that would make it a natural action..........but what makes it a natural RIGHT?

Ah, see,

now the various opinions of MEN come into deciding what are and aren't natural rights.

How is that dispute settled?

How can rights have come from the Creator, if they come from the decisions of MEN?

1. Men decide that rights came from the Creator

2. Men then decide, via their own invented decision-making process, what those rights are.

3. Thus is born the government of rights

4. Thus government, not the Creator, is the source of the rights.

If you reference our Founding documents, you will quickly see that America was founded on the acknowledgement that our rights are intrinsic and granted by the Creator.

In other words a fairy tale, since in nature it's might that makes right. The Founding Fathers constructed a set of rules that are decidedly unnatural, since in nature if I'm stronger than you, I get the lion's share and you get the scraps.

 

[Sallow]

Inalienable rights cannot be separated from the individual. They are possessed by the mere act of being a human being not to be given or taken away by government or society

And that's definitely not true.

Nelson Mandela's "liberty" was taken away from him for several decades.

^^^ This kind of shit right here is why people call you and your commie lot stupid.
No one has said that the natural rights of human beings can't be trod upon. Depriving a man of his life or his liberty doesn't mean that his "right" to those things didn't exist. THAT's why those sorts of actions are crimes.

You have to look at unalienable rights in the context of keeping the peace. What does it take for human beings to live together harmoniously? When you explore the question within that context, it's easy enough to see that predictable strife occurs when our rights are abrogated. You can't go to your neighbor's house and boldly take his property without expecting some trouble to come from it, some sort of retaliation. You can't falsely imprison people or make them slaves without consequence; the end of Apartheid, the U.S. Civil War. And why is that? ...It's because human beings are naturally inclined to be free and to protect their property.

What never fails to surprise me is just how shallow the reasoning powers of so-called liberals consistently remains. It's almost inhuman... like trained monkeys, aping human behavior, but never understanding or moved by it. You never seem to really ask yourselves "why", never really apply yourselves to the question. Sure, you started a thread, but you did it thinking that you could prove the tyranny of the mob, lead by your democratically anointed King, should be allowed to prevail over the most innate rights of human beings. And you think you've got John Locke by the balls over his writings on slavery, never realizing that all he managed to do was prove that his philosophy on human nature was correct. Abrogate the natural rights of human animals, tumult and strife ensues. As this applies to governance, people cannot live in the peace and harmony they are capable of when their natural rights are ignored or abrogated.

Go stick your own head in the yoke of slavery. There are quite a number of places you can do that on this planet. Leave the rest of us alone.

Actually.

I invite you to do just that.

It's not me that wants to wage war, restrict freedom of speech and make laws allowing dolts with guns to shoot people because of a perceived threat.

That would be you folks.

And you do this while at the same time wanting to tear down democratic institutions and forever put in it's place fascism or theocracy or both.

We Americans like our government. We like our Democratic institutions.

And you Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists, Oligarchists and every other nonsensical Conservative form of government are invited to take your bull and start a new nation.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

 

[SniperFire]

Ah, see,

now the various opinions of MEN come into deciding what are and aren't natural rights.

How is that dispute settled?

How can rights have come from the Creator, if they come from the decisions of MEN?

1. Men decide that rights came from the Creator

2. Men then decide, via their own invented decision-making process, what those rights are.

3. Thus is born the government of rights

4. Thus government, not the Creator, is the source of the rights.

If you reference our Founding documents, you will quickly see that America was founded on the acknowledgement that our rights are intrinsic and granted by the Creator.

In other words a fairy tale, since in nature it's might that makes right. The Founding Fathers constructed a set of rules that are decidedly unnatural, since in nature if I'm stronger than you, I get the lion's share and you get the scraps.

Yours is the tiny minority opinion.

You are a freak, but then again you freaks are drawn in disproportion to this website.

LOL

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And then the scientists realized that a formerly held belief in the model of the universe, was wrong. Go figure. That's why things like evolution are THEORY. We can say with some confidents in observation and study that we are drawing logical, rational and observed conclusions. We can not establish them as facts.

 

[Sallow]

so the right to force exists.....but the right to live does not....? pls explain...

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

why not.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to kill to eat.....?

doesn't an animal have the right to defend itself.....?

Nope.

There are no rights in nature.

Kill or be killed.

 

[Oddball]

There isn't a "right to force".

That help?

If there is no right to force, then the underpinning of your argument is gone.

Your entire argument relies upon the right of the biggest mob to force their will upon the smaller mob and the individual.

Your concession and capitulation is accepted.