What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

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-bitch, 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.

Would you like to explain your natural inclination for freedom in the light of historic fact?

If we accept the premise that rights are a construct of organization and politics then every slave revolt in history was wrong because organized rule/policies creates slavery, not freedom. The more organized a society becomes, the less freedom an individual has, and the fewer rights are accorded to people.

The only way authority can protect me from random violence is by taking away my rights. They need to be able to check into everything everyone is doing, thus they ignore my right to privacy. They need to make sure people are not plotting to kill me, so they ignore my right not to be subject to unreasonable search. There is no way for an authoritarian society to protect society unless they violate personal rights. This can easily be demonstrated by looking around the world and seeing that the societies with most oppressive governments also happen to have the lowest crime rates.

Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

PS

I never said God is the source of anything, stop throwing up strawmen. I have consistently argued that our rights come from the fact that we are alive, something that is not given to us by society. The only thing that society is capable of doing is restricting freedom, not protecting it. The harder it tries to protect people from others, the more it violates freedom.

 

[Koios]

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-bitch, 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.

Would you like to explain your natural inclination for freedom in the light of historic fact?

If we accept the premise that rights are a construct of organization and politics then every slave revolt in history was wrong because organized rule/policies creates slavery, not freedom. The more organized a society becomes, the less freedom an individual has, and the fewer rights are accorded to people.

The only way authority can protect me from random violence is by taking away my rights. They need to be able to check into everything everyone is doing, thus they ignore my right to privacy. They need to make sure people are not plotting to kill me, so they ignore my right not to be subject to unreasonable search. There is no way for an authoritarian society to protect society unless they violate personal rights. This can easily be demonstrated by looking around the world and seeing that the societies with most oppressive governments also happen to have the lowest crime rates.

Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

PS

I never said God is the source of anything, stop throwing up strawmen. I have consistently argued that our rights come from the fact that we are alive, something that is not given to us by society. The only thing that society is capable of doing is restricting freedom, not protecting it. The harder it tries to protect people from others, the more it violates freedom.

Sure. Historically humans evolved into rational beings. So now I, and others, are able to conjure all kinds of things, including but not limited to rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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-bitch, 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.

Would you like to explain your natural inclination for freedom in the light of historic fact?

If we accept the premise that rights are a construct of organization and politics then every slave revolt in history was wrong because organized rule/policies creates slavery, not freedom. The more organized a society becomes, the less freedom an individual has, and the fewer rights are accorded to people.

The only way authority can protect me from random violence is by taking away my rights. They need to be able to check into everything everyone is doing, thus they ignore my right to privacy. They need to make sure people are not plotting to kill me, so they ignore my right not to be subject to unreasonable search. There is no way for an authoritarian society to protect society unless they violate personal rights. This can easily be demonstrated by looking around the world and seeing that the societies with most oppressive governments also happen to have the lowest crime rates.

Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

PS

I never said God is the source of anything, stop throwing up strawmen. I have consistently argued that our rights come from the fact that we are alive, something that is not given to us by society. The only thing that society is capable of doing is restricting freedom, not protecting it. The harder it tries to protect people from others, the more it violates freedom.

Sure. Historically humans evolved into rational beings. So now I, and others, are able to conjure all kinds of things, including but not limited to rights.

We were rational long before you conjured the false premise that rights are constructs of society.

 

[Koios]

Would you like to explain your natural inclination for freedom in the light of historic fact?

If we accept the premise that rights are a construct of organization and politics then every slave revolt in history was wrong because organized rule/policies creates slavery, not freedom. The more organized a society becomes, the less freedom an individual has, and the fewer rights are accorded to people.

The only way authority can protect me from random violence is by taking away my rights. They need to be able to check into everything everyone is doing, thus they ignore my right to privacy. They need to make sure people are not plotting to kill me, so they ignore my right not to be subject to unreasonable search. There is no way for an authoritarian society to protect society unless they violate personal rights. This can easily be demonstrated by looking around the world and seeing that the societies with most oppressive governments also happen to have the lowest crime rates.

Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

PS

I never said God is the source of anything, stop throwing up strawmen. I have consistently argued that our rights come from the fact that we are alive, something that is not given to us by society. The only thing that society is capable of doing is restricting freedom, not protecting it. The harder it tries to protect people from others, the more it violates freedom.

Sure. Historically humans evolved into rational beings. So now I, and others, are able to conjure all kinds of things, including but not limited to rights.

We were rational long before you conjured the false premise that rights are constructs of society.

We? You are not now, so why would you have been previously?

 

[konradv]

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.

You assume that any way taxes are collected there isn't a way to avoid them, smuggling to escape import duties or under the table transactions to avoid sales and excise taxes to name a few. What's a government to do except send out "men with guns", if I refuse to comply?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure. Historically humans evolved into rational beings. So now I, and others, are able to conjure all kinds of things, including but not limited to rights.

We were rational long before you conjured the false premise that rights are constructs of society.

We? You are not now, so why would you have been previously?

Contradicting your idiocy only makes me irrational in the minds of idiots that fall for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there a reason no one has challenged my premise that society always limits rights?

 

[Koios]

Is there a reason no one has challenged my premise that society always limits rights?

Because doing it the 85th time is no more likely to bear fruit than the 84 times previous.

Now then. If we guarantee your right to privacy (bring me to trial and sue my ass should I divulge a secret about you and disseminate it against your specific instructions that it remain private, for example) or you have the freedom to say what you wish, and associate with whom you wish, print what you wish, etc .. THAT LIMITS YOUR RIGHTS???

 

[Koios]

We were rational long before you conjured the false premise that rights are constructs of society.

We? You are not now, so why would you have been previously?

Contradicting your idiocy only makes me irrational in the minds of idiots that fall for it.

Yes; that, and so much more QW. You can't even imagine.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. You're killing me, babe. No shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You assume that any way taxes are collected there isn't a way to avoid them, smuggling to escape import duties or under the table transactions to avoid sales and excise taxes to name a few. What's a government to do except send out "men with guns", if I refuse to comply?

Indirect taxes are very difficult to avoid. The main feature is that they are anonymous. It's hard for hard for one to get return for bribes to democrats in government when the vendor selling you stuff doesn't know who the hell you are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes; that, and so much more QW. You can't even imagine.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. You're killing me, babe. No shit.

You're kind of a one trick pony, aren't you?

No matter who your opponent is, you have on silly little schtick...

 

[Koios]

Yes; that, and so much more QW. You can't even imagine.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. You're killing me, babe. No shit.

You're kind of a one trick pony, aren't you?

No matter who your opponent is, you have on silly little schtick...

Nah; I have other tricks. But what's the point, since anything of substance is utterly ignored, or reponded to with some retarded and childish comeback, to which I respond in-kind and sure enough you jump in and add the to stupidity.

But it's fun playing along, for me. How's it working for you?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5s5qGg01nE]Cows With Guns (music by Dana Lyons, www.cowswithguns.com) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Koios]

Yes; that, and so much more QW. You can't even imagine.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. You're killing me, babe. No shit.

You're kind of a one trick pony, aren't you?

No matter who your opponent is, you have on silly little schtick...

For example, it's easy to address QM's assertions, which I'll do now and bet you each and every point I make is utterly ignored, by her, and you ... here goes:

QM: If we accept the premise that rights are a construct of organization and politics then every slave revolt in history was wrong because organized rule/policies creates slavery, not freedom. The more organized a society becomes, the less freedom an individual has, and the fewer rights are accorded to people.

Me: No. They did not have rights, which is why the revolts were both illegal and put down. In fact, they didn't have those rights, even in Africa, since despite misconceptions, slavers did not run through the jungle snagging natives; they dealt with chiefs, who sold undesireables within their tribes as well as those captured from other tribes. The rights of slaves to be free came when societies that had slavery abolished it and granted rights to them.

QM: The only way authority can protect me from random violence is by taking away my rights. They need to be able to check into everything everyone is doing, thus they ignore my right to privacy. They need to make sure people are not plotting to kill me, so they ignore my right not to be subject to unreasonable search. There is no way for an authoritarian society to protect society unless they violate personal rights. This can easily be demonstrated by looking around the world and seeing that the societies with most oppressive governments also happen to have the lowest crime rates.

Me: That's simply wrong. While nothing can guarantee you will be free of random violence, without our criminal justice system and government making it illegal and punishing law-breakers, violence would run amock, putting you at far greater risk of random and even deliberate violence.

QM: Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

Me: Our and other modern nations do know this; and we each have varying degrees of freedom to do as we wish. I can smoke pot in the Netherlands, but not here. We have freedom from religion and of religion, which the UK lacks, and so on and so on. But the key is the system of authority within the polities (governments), without which we'd be more like Somalia, where no functioning government is in place, currently; and thus the notion of rights to person and property is a joke, in and around Somalia.

 

[LibertyLemming]

QM: Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

Me: Our and other modern nations do know this; and we each have varying degrees of freedom to do as we wish. I can smoke pot in the Netherlands, but not here. We have freedom from religion and of religion, which the UK lacks, and so on and so on. But the key is the system of authority within the polities (governments), without which we'd be more like Somalia, where no functioning government is in place, currently; and thus the notion of rights to person and property is a joke, in and around Somalia.

You might enjoy this:

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nah; I have other tricks. But what's the point, since anything of substance is utterly ignored, or reponded to with some retarded and childish comeback, to which I respond in-kind and sure enough you jump in and add the to stupidity.

But it's fun playing along, for me. How's it working for you?

How what you know that anything of substance is ignored? You've certainly never posted anything of substance.

 

[Koios]

QM: Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

Me: Our and other modern nations do know this; and we each have varying degrees of freedom to do as we wish. I can smoke pot in the Netherlands, but not here. We have freedom from religion and of religion, which the UK lacks, and so on and so on. But the key is the system of authority within the polities (governments), without which we'd be more like Somalia, where no functioning government is in place, currently; and thus the notion of rights to person and property is a joke, in and around Somalia.

You might enjoy this:

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Leeson is a fucking loon. Also an economist, with nothing to say about rights. So even if some possible silver lining exists, economically, (absurd) try telling a Somali Pirate about your fucking rights, natural or otherwise, and then get ready to meet your maker.

Astonishing.

 

[Koios]

Nah; I have other tricks. But what's the point, since anything of substance is utterly ignored, or reponded to with some retarded and childish comeback, to which I respond in-kind and sure enough you jump in and add the to stupidity.

But it's fun playing along, for me. How's it working for you?

How what you know that anything of substance is ignored? You've certainly never posted anything of substance.

Okay; one prediction down, and spot fucking on.

QW; you out there? Care to address what was said?

I'm on fucking pins and needles.

 

[LibertyLemming]

QM: Free societies realize this, and use the threat of punishment to deter crime. The deterence you refer to does not protect my rights, it protects society from individuals that ignore the rules. Authority cannot protect rights, all it can do is punish those who violate the rules about not violating others rights.

Me: Our and other modern nations do know this; and we each have varying degrees of freedom to do as we wish. I can smoke pot in the Netherlands, but not here. We have freedom from religion and of religion, which the UK lacks, and so on and so on. But the key is the system of authority within the polities (governments), without which we'd be more like Somalia, where no functioning government is in place, currently; and thus the notion of rights to person and property is a joke, in and around Somalia.

You might enjoy this:

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Leeson is a fucking loon. Also an economist, with nothing to say about rights. So even if some possible silver lining exists, economically, (absurd) try telling a Somali Pirate about your fucking rights, natural or otherwise, and then get ready to meet your maker.

Astonishing.

Either way you compare a country to what it came from not to other countries while it is transitioning.

Most who advocate anarchy acknowledge that without a moral society almost not form of society is going to function perfectly.

 

[Koios]

You might enjoy this:

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Leeson is a fucking loon. Also an economist, with nothing to say about rights. So even if some possible silver lining exists, economically, (absurd) try telling a Somali Pirate about your fucking rights, natural or otherwise, and then get ready to meet your maker.

Astonishing.

Either way you compare a country to what it came from not to other countries while it is transitioning.

Most who advocate anarchy acknowledge that without a moral society almost not form of society is going to function perfectly.

No. Back to rights. What rights do you have in Somalia that we lack? Got anything?