What "rights" does nature give us?

[Contumacious]

There seems to be some confusion that the idiots define the debate. The initial question in this thread was what rights come from nature. There are always going to be idiots that insist that God is the only possible source of rights, just like there are going to be idiots that, since we cannot prove God exists, that negates the concept of natural rights entirely. .

That is merely a ploy.

They are NEVER going to admit that there is a such a thing as "natural rights" because they are criminals who believe they have a right to your wealth, your intellect, to the unearned.

.

 

[Dante]

Doesn't matter if it's a part of human instinct or not. Learning is a part of human instinct and a human's capacity to learn, whether it be to drive a car or paint an ocean scene, is as natural as a tree growing in the forest. And, the only embarrassment to the species is you and I don't take orders from you and I don't plan on ShuttingTFU anytime soon. Go ahead, enlighten us. What IS part of "human instinct", according to you?

Something that is personally instinctual like driving a car...is instinctual only for the particular driver....not everyone can drive one, and not everyone drives so...

Driving a car is not part of the set of human instincts

get it yet?

Everything that is instinctual, even if only one person finds it to be instinctual, is natural.

only in once sense, in another sense it is idiocy.

natural? driving a car isn't natural at all...it only seems natural for some


bye bye

no time for you anymore today

 

[LibertyLemming]

It shouldn't even matter. I can't fathom why people would accept the idea that there are no rights or that it is okay and maybe even a good thing that they are told how to live by people who do horrendous things like war for profit and literally handing taxpayer money to corporate executives lol...

 

[PaulS1950]

People, we have the right to keep and bear arms simply because we recognize that the right to self defense demands that we have equivelent tools to those who would attack us. The second amendment just tells the government to keep their hands out of it.

This is not an issue of a "constitutional" right, it is a God given natural right. All living creatures use self defense with some of the deadliest tools available in nature. We use our mind to make weapons with which to defend ourselves, those we care about and our property in the same way that corals use chemical toxins to kill other corals that attack them and in the same way that ablack widow spider protects itself and its territory. This is a natural right that is given by the Creator. No man and no government can take it away. That is why over milenia societies have stood up to groups and governments who are harmful to those who have been governed. The constitution just exclaims the right and lets our government know that we recognize our right to use force when necessary to defend our rights. That is why I will not relinquish my guns - my ability to protect myself and those I care about.
You may feel free to do what ever your conscience dictates - that is another right we BOTH have.

 

[Dante]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

 

[Contumacious]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

Shirley, you jest.

Are you telling me that once the Fiendstain- Scummer gun confiscation act goes into effect , they won't send the BATF to seize my firearms?


.

 

[LibertyLemming]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

 

[SniperFire]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

That one was pretty funny.

2 million sperm, and Dante was the fastest one?

LOL

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

Wrong.

We are subject to the rule of law, not men – armed or not.

 

[SniperFire]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

Wrong.

We are subject to the rule of law, not men – armed or not.

And if you disagree, men with guns will be there to convince you otherwise.

LOL

 

[Contumacious]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

Wrong.

We are subject to the rule of law, not men – armed or not.

tell that to the Davidians - and to the 2,400,000 inmates in US prisons.

.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

Unless that law says we have a right to bear arms...right? It's hilarious that, like the two-faced schmuck it appears you are, you can claim out one side of your virtual mouth that we're a nation of laws and then, out the other side of your virtual mouth, advocate for the breaking of the law by usurping Americans' Constitutional rights. What standing do you have to give anyone lectures about how we're a nation of laws while cheerleading those who want to violate the key and first laws of this nation, contained within the Constitution of the United States? Do you honestly expect anyone to take such blatant hypocrisy seriously?

 

[konradv]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

True, that's why they're not natural or you wouldn't need guns. I'm always amused when libertarians talk about "men with guns". Since we're told they're not anarchists and that there would be some, if minimal, laws, how are they enforced, with strongly worded notes?

 

[Koios]

There seems to be some strange notion that to recognize the fact that our rights are a consequence of our humanity, acknowledged and codified by Constitutional case law, and not the ‘creation’ of a non-existent deity, that our civil liberties are somehow ‘illegitimate.’

It goes without saying that this is ignorant idiocy.

Indeed, the fact that our rights are recognized as a result of human struggle, where men have fought and died for their rights against ignorance, hate, and intolerance, makes our rights that much more valuable and legitimate, as opposed to something just ‘given’ to us by an imagined god.

There seems to be some confusion that the idiots define the debate. The initial question in this thread was what rights come from nature[?]. There are always going to be idiots that insist that God is the only possible source of rights, just like there are going to be idiots that, since we cannot prove God exists, that negates the concept of natural rights entirely.

We fight for those rights because it is our right to fight for them regardless of their actual source. The struggle for the rights that legitimately come from government is just as bitter and hard fought as the one for natural rights.

Oh that. Easy. (none) Rights are a construct of organized rule / polities.

Without a functioning authority, while someone might easily do whatever they wish without fear of reprisal, unless of course they run into a meaner son-of-a-*****, there are no rights, since rights are things that are protected by a civil authority, which is a human and not natural construct.

Even those who imagine some kind of entitlement to basic, "natural" rights, which is subjective and the epitome of relativism, are themselves humans making the assertion and/or believing it. Thus, even that is still a HUMAN construct.

PS: God, too, is a human construct. So saying God gave us these rights, simply equates to the rights deriving of a human myth. Ergo, human and not natural nor divine in origin.

 

[hazlnut]

There seems to be some confusion that the idiots define the debate. The initial question in this thread was what rights come from nature. There are always going to be idiots that insist that God is the only possible source of rights, just like there are going to be idiots that, since we cannot prove God exists, that negates the concept of natural rights entirely. .

That is merely a ploy.

They are NEVER going to admit that there is a such a thing as "natural rights" because they are criminals who believe they have a right to your wealth, your intellect, to the unearned.

.

Why don't you explain the natural mechanism, that which exists in nature, gives babies special rights.

Explain that or admit failure.

 

[LibertyLemming]

We are a nation of laws, not men or guns

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

True, that's why they're not natural or you wouldn't need guns. I'm always amused when libertarians talk about "men with guns". Since we're told they're not anarchists and that there would be some, if minimal, laws, how are they enforced, with strongly worded notes?

I have no problem with anarchy. There is a large difference between police using guns to stop murderers, theifs, rapist, basically people who prevent others from enjoying liberty and using police with guns to lock up millions for non-violent crimes with no victim.

 

[konradv]

You do realize laws are only accepted because there are the men with guns who enforce them, right?

True, that's why they're not natural or you wouldn't need guns. I'm always amused when libertarians talk about "men with guns". Since we're told they're not anarchists and that there would be some, if minimal, laws, how are they enforced, with strongly worded notes?

I have no problem with anarchy. There is a large difference between police using guns to stop murderers, theifs, rapist, basically people who prevent others from enjoying liberty and using police with guns to lock up millions for non-violent crimes with no victim.

What about collecting taxes? Even a minarchist government that only had police to stop murderers, thieves and rapists would need some funds. What if I refused to pay?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong.

We are subject to the rule of law, not men – armed or not.

Unless Dear Leader wills it otherwise, in which case he declares an EO as law.

Obama Akbar.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What about collecting taxes? Even a minarchist government that only had police to stop murderers, thieves and rapists would need some funds. What if I refused to pay?

You assume direct taxes are the only option.

 

[LibertyLemming]

What about collecting taxes? Even a minarchist government that only had police to stop murderers, thieves and rapists would need some funds. What if I refused to pay?

You assume direct taxes are the only option.

This. I'm sure we could get enough voluntary contributions to pay for a minimal state, especially considering how often I see people raging about how they want the defense budget increased.