Do "rights" really exist or are they imaginary?

[rational thinker]

I think Carlin hit it right on the nail and said what I've been thinking for a while. Only he is a lot more eloquent.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=4m10s

[centure7]

There is zero evidence that rights exist, yet I strongly believe they do exist as a blind faith issue. I believe good and evil exist, and again as a fundamental blind faith. I believe that rights are simply a consequence of the existence of good & evil as fundamental forces of the universe. However, I certainly don't know of any evidence of that. It is simply a faith.

The only thing I have not decided for sure is whether I believe in rights because I want to believe them, or I believe in rights because my gut is telling me about subtle environmental cues that have not yet been codified into science yet, in the same way a scientist formulates a hypothesis based on casual observations but does not yet have any evidence to back up his theory.

[tremendoustie]

I do believe rights are real, as a subset of morality which is real. We certainly can have differing views on morality, but I think it is like a number of pupils getting different answers on their math homework, rather than a number of pupils disagreeing on their favorite flavor of ice cream. There is a right answer -- it is not all a matter of taste.

[rational thinker]

I do believe rights are real, as a subset of morality which is real. We certainly can have differing views on morality, but I think it is like a number of pupils getting different answers on their math homework, rather than a number of pupils disagreeing on their favorite flavor of ice cream. There is a right answer -- it is not all a matter of taste.
Can you provide evidence without using faith or god?

[Bman]

I think Carlin hit it right on the nail and said what I've been thinking for a while. Only he is a lot more eloquent.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=4m10s

Gotta love Carlin.

"You have unlimited rights, or no rights."

That's just brilliant.

[rational thinker]

bump

[Truth Warrior]

I think Carlin hit it right on the nail and said what I've been thinking for a while. Only he is a lot more eloquent.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=4m10s

Who OWNS you? The answer to that question determines your reality.<IMHO>

[Feenix566]

Rights absolutely do exist and believing in them is not a matter of faith.

Before you can approach the issue of why that statement is true, you have to start out by asking the more fundamental question, "What is the purpose of morality?" Rights are the mechanism by which morality functions. You must understand the purpose of morality before you can understand the mechanism by which it works.

Think about what the world would be like if there was no morality.

[1000-points-of-fright]

They do not exist on their own like the laws of physics. If you drop a bowling ball from the empire state building it will fall, accelerating to terminal velocity and there's nothing you can do about it. Gravity is a pre-existing law.

We say our rights are pre-existing and derive from our nature as humans because it makes us feel better and makes for a more orderly, pleasant existence.

But if I kill you, absent our social constructs and other people who actually give a shit, that's it you're dead and I walk away free. Nature or God or your "rights" didn't protect you or punish me.

Rights are only what we agree upon and enforce.

[pcosmar]

We hold these truths to be self-evident
Yes these rights exist.
You either see it or you don't.

If you don't find it to be self-evident you may want to examine yourself, and find out what your problem is.

[Truth Warrior]

Just because rights can be and are violated, does not establish nor does it prove their non-existence.

[torchbearer]

Can you provide evidence without using faith or god?

Sure, try to infringe upon those rights and see what this glock does to you.
If you walk into a wall and you hit it... you know it is there.
When you try to walk on my rights, and I hit you... you know where that line is...
Thus, my willingness to define and defend my soveriengty, creates it.

[johnrocks]

I own me, I should have the right to do what I please as long as I do no harm to others or their property. I love this by Robert Taft on Liberty...

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as “free enterprise.” I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world; liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing."

[heavenlyboy34]

Just because rights can be and are violated, does not establish nor does it prove their non-existence.

qft!!:D

[Feenix566]

They do not exist on their own like the laws of physics. If you drop a bowling ball from the empire state building it will fall, accelerating to terminal velocity and there's nothing you can do about it. Gravity is a pre-existing law.

We say our rights are pre-existing and derive from our nature as humans because it makes us feel better and makes for a more orderly, pleasant existence.

But if I kill you, absent our social constructs and other people who actually give a shit, that's it you're dead and I walk away free. Nature or God or your "rights" didn't protect you or punish me.

Rights are only what we agree upon and enforce.

Rights do exist.

If you and I were living on an island, and you kill me, you've missed out on the opportunity to cooperate and trade with me. Consequently, your lifestyle will be worse than it would be had you not killed me.

On the other hand, if we were living on an island, and I was stealing from you, and you killed me, your lifestyle would be better than it would have been had you not killed me.

In both cases, you would face the natural consequences of your actions. These two hypothetical scenarios give us a wealth of insight into the true nature of morality.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

They do not exist on their own like the laws of physics. If you drop a bowling ball from the empire state building it will fall, accelerating to terminal velocity and there's nothing you can do about it. Gravity is a pre-existing law.

We say our rights are pre-existing and derive from our nature as humans because it makes us feel better and makes for a more orderly, pleasant existence.

But if I kill you, absent our social constructs and other people who actually give a shit, that's it you're dead and I walk away free. Nature or God or your "rights" didn't protect you or punish me.

Rights are only what we agree upon and enforce.

Not true about the bowling ball. I can erect a platform just under the drop point and keep the ball from falling, just as you could pull a trigger to remove my right to exist. Each action is merely interference with a law or a right.

[Truth Warrior]

If rights are imaginary then what becomes of the "legitimate" ( so called ) PURPOSE for government?

POOF!

[strapko]

I think you are asking the wrong question. If rights are self-evident and exist, then why do some countries have more rights then others, freer then others. If rights do exist then wouldn't it be impossible to break them. If rights exist shouldn't everyone know there rights? I would have to agree with Carlin, rights are imaginary. Also, if you do not fight for your rights you wont have any, if you do then you will. These days rights are slowly becoming extinct.

[mconder]

Can you provide evidence without using faith or god?

You know we can't, yet us people of faith continue to believe and the atheists will never understand something that can only be understood spiritually. We believers understand that there are rights and a God because we don't silence or destroy our spiritual natures. I think an atheist/agnostic has a chance to discover these things if they soften their hard hearts. There is an understanding greater than intellect.

[torchbearer]

I think you are asking the wrong question. If rights are self-evident and exist, then why do some countries have more rights then others, freer then others. If rights do exist then wouldn't it be impossible to break them. If rights exist shouldn't everyone know there rights? I would have to agree with Carlin, rights are imaginary. Also, if you do not fight for your rights you wont have any, if you do then you will. These days rights are slowly becoming extinct.

More rights than other... when all rights are the same... if there is a disparity, then someone's government has infringed on their rights.
So- you are talking about governments, and how much they try and tell people what their rights are...
If our rights came from government... then they are the master, and we are the slave.

[Feenix566]

I think you are asking the wrong question. If rights are self-evident and exist, then why do some countries have more rights then others, freer then others. If rights do exist then wouldn't it be impossible to break them. If rights exist shouldn't everyone know there rights? I would have to agree with Carlin, rights are imaginary. Also, if you do not fight for your rights you wont have any, if you do then you will. These days rights are slowly becoming extinct.

Just because some countries choose to ignore rights, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Natural law is everywhere. It is unavoidable.

Some automobile designers account for the fact that parts degrade over time. Some do not. This doesn't mean the law of automobile part degredation doesn't exist for those who choose to ignore it. What it means is that cars designed by people who don't account for part degredation will be less reliable than those created by designers who accept it.

Likewise, societies created by people who choose to ignore natural rights will be less prosperous than societies created by people who accept them.

[mczerone]

Rights do exist.

If you and I were living on an island, and you kill me, you've missed out on the opportunity to cooperate and trade with me. Consequently, your lifestyle will be worse than it would be had you not killed me.

On the other hand, if we were living on an island, and I was stealing from you, and you killed me, your lifestyle would be better than it would have been had you not killed me.

In both cases, you would face the natural consequences of your actions. These two hypothetical scenarios give us a wealth of insight into the true nature of morality.

To tear apart your model: If the two of us were competing for resources on the island, and I kill you, I have gained the use of all of you resources. So even without you having been infringing on my rights, I am in a better position with you being dead.

The whole "better position" fallacy was put to bed with Nozick, IIRC


Rights are "imaginary": they are a construct of the rational mind, as applied to the real world.

That doesn't mean that they are arbitrary or subjective, only that they do not exist separate from the rational mind.

Rights are an extension of the axiomatic underpinnings from Descartes and Kant, through Mises to Rothbard, that (1) "I" exist, and have rationality (whether I use it or not), (2) people have bodies that they can control through the use of their reason, (3) other people exist with what must be assumed to be equal rights to gain possession of unowned material (property) and use their own bodies how they see fit.

From those 3 undeniable propositions, we see the framework of "rights": To use your body (or property) in any way you want, limited only by the rights of others to use their body (or property).

To extend those "rights" to things such as "free speech", "Secure households", "Bearing Arms", and a "right against government taking" really is just an application of personal and property rights that arises naturally from reason alone. As codified in the Constitution, they are (intended to be) limits on the powers of the state, recognizing that personal rights are more just than the whim of whoever claims that power has been bestowed to them.

So are rights imaginary? Yes. They are. There is no existence separate from the internal workings of our minds, but they cannot be rationally denied by the mind, only skirted by those who elevate themselves above the humanness of those whose rights they violate ("3/5ths of a person", "terrorist", "illegals"). The only way to rationally violate the rights of another human is to dehumanize them, and that just another task that the state is all too familiar with and comfortable using.

[heavenlyboy34]

If rights are imaginary then what becomes of the "legitimate" ( so called ) PURPOSE for government?

POOF!

lol ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I think you are asking the wrong question. If rights are self-evident and exist, then why do some countries have more rights then others, freer then others. If rights do exist then wouldn't it be impossible to break them. If rights exist shouldn't everyone know there rights? I would have to agree with Carlin, rights are imaginary. Also, if you do not fight for your rights you wont have any, if you do then you will. These days rights are slowly becoming extinct. I think YOU are asking the wrong question. Rights do NOT originate from governments. They just call them rights, ONLY to confuse, con and suck you into willingly participate in their scams.<IMHO> ;)

"It's tough to fight an enemy that maintains an outpost in your mind."


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

i think you are asking the wrong question. Rights do not originate from governments. They just call them that, only to suck you in.<imho> ;)

+1776 ;):)

[pcosmar]

We hold these truths to be self-evident

self-evident

If you don't,,,GTFO

[LibertyEagle]

I hate to say it, but I agree with TW's last post. Our rights do not come from government; even our Founders told us that. That is why they used the term, "inalienable". We own our own rights; they are not given by government. That's important to understand, because if you believe they come from government, you are buying into the pretense that government can take them away. That's one of the huge differences between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter.

The intent of our government was to protect our liberty; not grant it.

Note: I think it was Jefferson who was concerned about including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, because he was concerned that it would be misconstrued that these were our only rights. That is one of the reasons for the 10th Amendment; to make sure that it was known that these were not our only rights.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Truth Warrior]

Thomas Jefferson (http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-jefferson) described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson (http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-jefferson)'s formulation of this doctrine of “strict construction” was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.

http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution (http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think Carlin hit it right on the nail and said what I've been thinking for a while. Only he is a lot more eloquent.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=4m10s

There is a difference between a civil right and a natural right and I've already explained this dozens of times. A civil right is a human right and it is something on the level of social sciences.
On the other hand, a natural right is self-evident and unalienably true. It originated by narrowing down evidence politically through the use of natural law. Because there existed no such thing as the social sciences during he time of John Locke, the natural rights had to literally exist on the physical level where they were imprinted indelibly like DnA on the souls of every human being.

[BillyDkid]

I understand what George is saying, but the entire premise of this country is that we do have rights. Those rights may be disregarded or infringed on, but that doesn't mean we don't rightfully have them. The other side of that coin is to say that if we don't have rights it means that other people somehow have rights over us, which is certainly less defensible. The reality is, whoever has the power can control others. The country was founded on the idea that this won't be true in this country. Unfortunately, that has not been how it has played out. The government has the power to take away all our rights if it chooses to just like it did with Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. The fundamental premise for the formation of this country is that we unalienable rights granted to us by our "creator" (whatever that may mean to you). Sadly, too many people choose to believe we get our rights from our rulers or from the will of the mob.

[Feenix566]

To tear apart your model: If the two of us were competing for resources on the island, and I kill you, I have gained the use of all of you resources. So even without you having been infringing on my rights, I am in a better position with you being dead.

You're assuming that there aren't enough resources on the island to feed both of us. That assumption is almost never true in real life. Resource harvesting takes work. In almost all cases, we can harvest twice as many resources by working twice as hard.

In the rare instance in which there aren't enough resources available for both of us to sustain our existence, then you certainly could argue that it would be morally acceptable to kill me. When someone is faced with the decision of kill or be killed, it's pretty much universally accepted that killing is morally permissable.



So are rights imaginary? Yes. They are. There is no existence separate from the internal workings of our minds, but they cannot be rationally denied by the mind, only skirted by those who elevate themselves above the humanness of those whose rights they violate ("3/5ths of a person", "terrorist", "illegals"). The only way to rationally violate the rights of another human is to dehumanize them, and that just another task that the state is all too familiar with and comfortable using.

You're contradicting yourself. The word "imaginary" implies that the concept only exists within your brain, as opposed to being something that you're observing about the world around you. If a right cannot be rationally denied, than it exists outside the human consciousness.

[Minarchy4Sale]

This is not a problem for me. I claim my rights as a child of God. Honestly, I think humanism was the beginning of the end where liberty is concerned. Its funny how we have come full circle. First, the elites claimed divine right by keeping the serfs ignorant and frightened of God. When man got brave enough to believe that he could maintain his own link to God, liberty flourished. Then of course, the elites had to destroy God to reclaim their supremacy. If we worship the group, then the leaders are again effectively God.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Sure, try to infringe upon those rights and see what this glock does to you.
If you walk into a wall and you hit it... you know it is there.
When you try to walk on my rights, and I hit you... you know where that line is...
Thus, my willingness to define and defend my soveriengty, creates it.

Exactly my point. If you choose not to defend your rights (individually or as a society) then they cease to exist.

A right is a concept. Without human thought and action, it does not affect you.

On another tangent, take our right of freedom of religion. We must have made that up because God demands we worship him or face punishment. That's not freedom of religion. So how can we say our rights come from God if one of our most basic rights is in direct opposition to his word?

[torchbearer]

Exactly my point. If you choose not to defend your rights (individually or as a society) then they cease to exist.

A right is a concept. Without human thought and action, it does not affect you.

On another tangent, take our right of freedom of religion. We must have made that up because God demands we worship him or face punishment. That's not freedom of religion. So how can we say our rights come from God if one of our most basic rights is in direct opposition to his word?

The rights are still there, just not enforced.
A slave is still human, and still has potential of sovereignty.
BUt that potential doesn't become kinetic until the slave rises up and claims them.
Thus, the right was always there... but isn't realized until you claim it. (just because you didn't know about that extra bank account with a million dollars in it, doesn't mean it didn't exist)
I was giving a tangible. You can use empirical data to point to the evidence of rights existing.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Exactly my point. If you choose not to defend your rights (individually or as a society) then they cease to exist.

A right is a concept. Without human thought and action, it does not affect you.

On another tangent, take our right of freedom of religion. We must have made that up because God demands we worship him or face punishment. That's not freedom of religion. So how can we say our rights come from God if one of our most basic rights is in direct opposition to his word?

That depends on your definition of God. Mine certainly doesnt include punishment for failure to worship him. That would kind of kill the whole point of free will, wouldnt it?

[Feenix566]

I don't think there's a conflict between the religious view of rights and the secular view. If we agree that rights exist as an observable part of reality, saying that rights come from God is just like saying that gravity comes from God. They're both observable parts of nature.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I hate to say it, but I agree with TW's last post. Our rights do not come from government; even our Founders told us that. That is why they used the term, "inalienable". We own our own rights; they are not given by government. That's important to understand, because if you believe they come from government, you are buying into the pretense that government can take them away. That's one of the huge differences between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter.

The intent of our government was to protect our liberty; not grant it.

Note: I think it was Jefferson who was concerned about including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, because he was concerned that it would be misconstrued that these were our only rights. That is one of the reasons for the 10th Amendment; to make sure that it was known that these were not our only rights.

"Unalienable" means that a self-evident truth can't be misinterpreted or misunderstood because it reduces down to become indelibly imprinted, bipartisanly, on every human soul. So, a king's soul understands that which is self-evident and unalienable. No waffling on the matter because of a legal precedent technicality. If his soul doesn't understand, then he is deemed not a king ordained with God's sovereign authority on earth but a tyrant.

[mczerone]

You're assuming that there aren't enough resources on the island to feed both of us. That assumption is almost never true in real life. Resource harvesting takes work. In almost all cases, we can harvest twice as many resources by working twice as hard.

In the rare instance in which there aren't enough resources available for both of us to sustain our existence, then you certainly could argue that it would be morally acceptable to kill me. When someone is faced with the decision of kill or be killed, it's pretty much universally accepted that killing is morally permissable.



You're contradicting yourself. The word "imaginary" implies that the concept only exists within your brain, as opposed to being something that you're observing about the world around you. If a right cannot be rationally denied, than it exists outside the human consciousness.

Thanks for the response.

In the island scenario - all that I was saying was that "rights" are not derived from a hypothetical situation where you would or would not be better off by taking some action.

To point out that I was not being contradictory: Does your consciousness exist, or is it imaginary? Certainly you cannot deny it, so by your deduction your consciousness then exists. However, does it exist outside of your consciousness?

There is a rather deep philosophical underpinning to this debate, that questions the nature of "reality".

Here we have come up with a couple of "things" that certainly do not exist without your consciousness (so it would be expected that they are imaginary), but yet they cannot be logically denied. Just because something is imaginary doesn't mean that it cannot have effects in the actions of men. Santa Clause, though being imaginary, can yet foster a sense of giving and good will in men. The modern vision of Jesus, which cannot be historically correct in its entirety, is at least partially imaginary - yet it fosters a great cooperative spirit.

Rights are imaginary, and they are only respected by other human beings if they also have accepted (1) that rights should be applicable and (2) that you have as many rights as they do.

Without this mutual acceptance of what "rights" are, they may as well be imaginary, especially if the person denying them has more power than the person asserting them.

That my right to my own body is self-evident and rationally undeniable doesn't make it a corporeal, physical, piece of paper that can be presented to any person or government that seeks to trample that right. It is only through a mutual understanding that I have the power to assert any particular right so that the other person doesn't infringe upon me. And just because they do infringe doesn't deny that the right exists.

In a Crusoe World with one other person, both people have rights. Whether one kills the other or trades with him has no bearing on what their Rights are. The actions of one person may infringe on or align with the other's rights, and those actions that infringe on another's rights are those that are contradictory to the nature of the actor. Whether it would be economically beneficial or not, to kill the other man on the island is outside the rights of the actor because it implies either that he is ready and willing to have his life taken or is not the "same level" of "human" as the other man - a contradiction either way.

Rights are imaginary (a construct of the mind alone) - but that in no way means that we cannot assert our own or stand up for the rights of others in the face of oppression.

[mczerone]

I don't think there's a conflict between the religious view of rights and the secular view. If we agree that rights exist as an observable part of reality, saying that rights come from God is just like saying that gravity comes from God. They're both observable parts of nature.

How can you observe my Right to own my own body? Or my Right to plant whatever seeds I would like in my garden?

If you could observe a right, you could measure it - at least booleanly - and if you could measure rights, then you could compare them between people. Does everyone have equal rights? Do some people or groups have more or less than you or I? Well, I think we must agree that "rights" are equally bestowed upon all, and therefore can only be observed as being "present" or "absent" for each right. Does that then mean if we cannot observe someone's "right", that he doesn't have it?

[diggronpaul]

Can you provide evidence without using faith or god?
John Locke create a construct that for the first time in the history of humankind man experienced liberty. The construct leveraged the concept of a higher power, so that another man simply could not take away ones liberty by decree.

These are simply systems of thought. If you can develop a better one, than go right ahead, as you are still currently free to think (if you dare).

But, what I'm concerned is happening in this thread is an attack on the current construct that our nation was built upon. And without a replacement construct that maintains our liberties, humans will end-up being nothing more than protoplasm who struggle for privileges under the oppression of incredibly wealthy oligarchs.

[mconder]

Honestly, I think humanism was the beginning of the end where liberty is concerned.

Quite logically, if there is no creator, then there are no innate rights. In the absence of a God, might makes right.

[Theocrat]

Yes, rights do exist, but they necessitate an ultimate Authority Who gives those rights. Without such an Authority, there can be no rights because rights then become arbitrary with no standard to establish them by. In that case, rights would then only be imaginary. Of course, the Authority Which I refer to is the triune God, as revealed to us in the Bible (There is no other God than He). Without acknowledging and living unto this God, rights disappear, and human autonomy steps in to establish what rights men have and what ones can be taken away via civil government.

Just in passing, I would say that rights are also conditional. Though the State can (or should) never take away an individual's rights (unless they commit a crime), God has the only Authority to establish rights and to take those rights away when people violate His eternal laws, whether they be moral or civil. Righteousness and obedience to God are keystones to the preservation and blessing of rights within a given society.

Today, we no longer understand that nor teach that as American people. Yet, all of the ills we face today in our political culture and societal norms come from the fact that we refuse to live unto our Creator and rely on Him for sustaining our rights. Instead, we forget about Him and try to "feel around" for what we think rights might be based on our sinful, finite human understanding of the universe. That's why we have an almost impossible time trying to discuss what rights are in threads like this. Each person, making himself the standard of truth, pontificates what he thinks rights are or should be, but no one ever (or rarely) comes with a more sure foundation of how rights are justified in an absolute sense. We become even more confused.

However, our Founding Fathers had a more sure foundation to what rights are, and they viewed them as being self-evident because they believed in an eternal, loving God Who made Himself known to humanity. If we would ever get back to that track of thinking about the nature of rights and how they function in society and government, we would see a great awakening in our political institutions, educational establishments, and everywhere else. Yet, we increasingly hold ourselves in bondage by our need to be autonomous and refusing to acknowledge that there is an Authority out there higher than we Who makes rights intelligible. So, until we make peace with our Creator, we will never have peace, and rights will become all the more imaginary to those who deny the giver of those rights.

[Mesogen]

Sure, try to infringe upon those rights and see what this glock does to you.
If you walk into a wall and you hit it... you know it is there.
When you try to walk on my rights, and I hit you... you know where that line is...
Thus, my willingness to define and defend my soveriengty, creates it.

I agree with what you say. Your rights are what you can claim through force or the indifference of others.


I own me, I should have the right to do what I please as long as I do no harm to others or their property.

You no longer own yourself if torchbearer can use his glock to force you to do his bidding, and then you do it.


If rights are imaginary then what becomes of the "legitimate" ( so called ) PURPOSE for government?

POOF!

Collective self-protection. You don't need rights for that, just a will to survive and to live the way you choose. Good luck with everyone else's lifestyle choices getting in the way.


I understand what George is saying, but the entire premise of this country is that we do have rights. Those rights may be disregarded or infringed on, but that doesn't mean we don't rightfully have them.

Just because you feel entitled to something doesn't mean it is yours. Just because you feel like you should be allowed to speak and think anything you want doesn't mean that you can in all circumstances. Some other people will try to stop you.


The rights are still there, just not enforced.
A slave is still human, and still has potential of sovereignty.
BUt that potential doesn't become kinetic until the slave rises up and claims them.
Thus, the right was always there... but isn't realized until you claim it. (just because you didn't know about that extra bank account with a million dollars in it, doesn't mean it didn't exist)
I was giving a tangible. You can use empirical data to point to the evidence of rights existing.

This goes back to your earlier post.

The "right" doesn't exist until you make it exist through force (or others' indifference).


Quite logically, if there is no creator, then there are no innate rights. In the absence of a God, might makes right.

Might makes what happens. Right and wrong are a matter of opinion. Welcome to the real world.

[Theocrat]

I think you are asking the wrong question. If rights are self-evident and exist, then why do some countries have more rights then others, freer then others. If rights do exist then wouldn't it be impossible to break them. If rights exist shouldn't everyone know there rights? I would have to agree with Carlin, rights are imaginary. Also, if you do not fight for your rights you wont have any, if you do then you will. These days rights are slowly becoming extinct.[Emphasis mine]

So, even though rights are imaginary (according to you and George Carlin), we still have to fight for them? Why fight for something which you believe doesn't exist? Is that not superstition of the highest sort?

[Mesogen]

[Emphasis mine]

So, even though rights are imaginary (according to you and George Carlin), we still have to fight for them? Why fight for something which you believe doesn't exist? Is that not superstition of the highest sort?

You fight for what you want. You can call them rights if you want.

[mczerone]

Yes, rights do exist, but they necessitate an ultimate Authority Who gives those rights. Without such an Authority, there can be no rights because rights then become arbitrary with no standard to establish them by.

Reason? Logic?

Rights given by a Creator are no rights at all, and if that is your stance, then why would a Creator give something as a "right" when he gives others the power to trample on them?


I don't want to question your personal beliefs, as I do believe we are each entitled to his own, but to claim that rights are part of what a Creator imbued to us is a very large leap in logic, and seems to undercut the notion of "equality" of rights unless every man subscribes to your beliefs.

Bottom line from your post: "Rights" are as real as "God". I agree with that, but I would add that they are independent concepts: one can have found their God but still not respect other's "rights", and one can develop a coherent system of rights without the need for a Creator.

[Truth Warrior]

Collective self-protection. You don't need rights for that, just a will to survive and to live the way you choose. Good luck with everyone else's lifestyle choices getting in the way.

Thanks!

BTW, that's a non-responsive reply to my question.<IMHO> :(

Another question. Why are YOUR "collective self-protection" agencies allowed to violate my choices to live the way I choose?

[Theocrat]

Reason? Logic?

Rights given by a Creator are no rights at all, and if that is your stance, then why would a Creator give something as a "right" when he gives others the power to trample on them?


I don't want to question your personal beliefs, as I do believe we are each entitled to his own, but to claim that rights are part of what a Creator imbued to us is a very large leap in logic, and seems to undercut the notion of "equality" of rights unless every man subscribes to your beliefs.

Bottom line from your post: "Rights" are as real as "God". I agree with that, but I would add that they are independent concepts: one can have found their God but still not respect other's "rights", and one can develop a coherent system of rights without the need for a Creator.

Maybe you missed what I said in that post, but I made the point that rights can only be taken away by God. When men and women act contrary to God's ways, one of the consequences is that rights will be taken from them in punishment (just as a parent might send his child to his room for not completing chores). Since God is eternally sovereign, He sometimes uses civil governments as a means to take rights away from a disobedient people (those committing violations of God's moral and civil laws, "criminals," in that sense). This is how God sometimes reckons His power and reveals His righteousness to people in a civil arena, and there are many examples of that in the Bible.

Reason and logic do not justify themselves. They can only make sense by an eternal Being, and that Being is God. He defines what reason and logic are (as He is called the Logos in John's Gospel), and therefore, they are based on God's nature and thinking.

As far as your notion of there being an "equality of rights," I do not deny it. However, you have to realize that because we live in a sinful world, those rights will not always be administered or preserved equally when men live in rebellion to God's revelation. Those who reject God will, oftentimes, not experience such an equality of rights. As I've said before, rights are conditional on righteousness. Without God, the concept of rights cannot be justified consistently, no matter what system is used precluding God's existence. This is the inevitable consequence of trying to formulate theories of "rights" without God in the picture. "Rights" then only become as real as the person who speaks about them, and ultimately, the person with the strongest voice (or largest army) will be the foundation for those rights to life, liberty, property, transportation, etc.

[diggronpaul]

Quite logically, if there is no creator, then there are no innate rights. In the absence of a God, might makes right.
Hence, the elite's continual attack on our belief in God.

This is an incredibly scary thread. Why is the OP asking this? Why am I seeing more and more threads recently challenging basic belief systems for which our liberties are founded? This is not a positive trend.

[jack555]

I think Carlin hit it right on the nail and said what I've been thinking for a while. Only he is a lot more eloquent.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=4m10s

Its obvious that inalienable rights are in our head. However, that doesn't mean we don't have them. All humans more or less know what is reasonable. However, it takes a disciplined man to be reasonable when he doesn't need to be.

It is reasonable to assume everyone has the inalienable right to do whatever they want as long as they harm no one else. Its unreasonable to say otherwise. However if someone points a gun at my head and says I don't have freedom of speech. I no longer have freedom of speech untill the gun is moved.

I have the rights because I say I have them and because its reasonable. Also our government (supposedly) protects our inalienable rights listed in the constitution.

[torchbearer]

I agree with what you say. Your rights are what you can claim through force or the indifference of others.



You no longer own yourself if torchbearer can use his glock to force you to do his bidding, and then you do it.



Collective self-protection. You don't need rights for that, just a will to survive and to live the way you choose. Good luck with everyone else's lifestyle choices getting in the way.



Just because you feel entitled to something doesn't mean it is yours. Just because you feel like you should be allowed to speak and think anything you want doesn't mean that you can in all circumstances. Some other people will try to stop you.



This goes back to your earlier post.

The "right" doesn't exist until you make it exist through force (or others' indifference).



Might makes what happens. Right and wrong are a matter of opinion. Welcome to the real world.

force can be used in two ways.
aggression and defense. get a brain.. they should be cheap.(not in high demand these days)

If you step on my rights, and I use force, it is a defense of that right.
Did you fail kindergarten?

[mconder]

Might makes what happens.

That may be a better way to put it, but in the absence of a creator and communication between him and man, who is the ultimate authority on was is right? Doesn't right and wrong become relative? Perhaps those with the power to rule with an iron fist are in the right because they help with the natural selection process. Perhaps nature is right and those smarter and stronger should rule over us any way they see fit.

[jack555]

You know we can't, yet us people of faith continue to believe and the atheists will never understand something that can only be understood spiritually. We believers understand that there are rights and a God because we don't silence or destroy our spiritual natures. I think an atheist/agnostic has a chance to discover these things if they soften their hard hearts. There is an understanding greater than intellect.


Where in the bible does it say you have inalienable rights?

[jack555]

dp

[mconder]

Where in the bible does it say you have inalienable rights?

I'm Mormon. I don't believe the Bible to be everything that God has ever said to man. We have 3 other works of Scripture which speak to this topic. Though, I think from the Bible you can make the case that people are children of a God and as such have infinite value. Also, from the bible I think you can make the case that God's chosen have a right to defend themselves with force. Living under totalitarian rule is obviously at odds with biblical teachings. The God of the Bible always liberated his chosen when they were righteous and allowed them to enter bondage when they didn't listen. That is certainly biblical, is it not?


"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" --George Washington

"So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectable members of society..." --John Quincy Adams

"That book, sir, is the rock on which our republic rests" --Andrew Jackson

"I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong" --Abraham Lincoln

President Lincoln was also noted as saying: "It is the duty of nations as well as men to recognize the truth announced in Holy Scripture and proven by all of history that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord."

"Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties. Write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book are we indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future. Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a 2 reproach to any people" --Ulysses S. Grant

"If you take out of your statutes, your constitution, your family life all that is taken from the Sacred Book, what would there be left to bind society together?" --Benjamin Harrison

"Almost every man who has by his life-work added to the sum of human achievement of which the race is proud, of which our people are proud, almost every such man has based his life-work largely upon the teachings of the Bible" --Theodore Roosevelt

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government ... not in the Constitution... (but) upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments" --James Madison

"The government of a country never gets ahead of the religion of a country. There is no way by which we can substitute the authority of the law for the virtues of men" --Calvin Coolidge

I could find hundreds more quotes like this from almost every founding father, but you all know how to use Google.

[Mesogen]

force can be used in two ways.
aggression and defense. get a brain.. they should be cheap.(not in high demand these days)

If you step on my rights, and I use force, it is a defense of that right.
Did you fail kindergarten?

You are defending something you want. You can call it rights if you like. You may feel entitled to these things that you want. It is immaterial.

[Mesogen]

Thanks!

BTW, that's a non-responsive reply to my question.<IMHO> :(

Another question. Why are YOUR "collective self-protection" agencies allowed to violate my choices to live the way I choose?

They are not MY collective self-protection agencies. I'm explaining what government is, not what it should be.

People are stupid and cannot come up with a system of collective self-protection that actually protects them and allows people to do what they want all the time.

[mconder]

Please excuse the inclusion of Abraham Lincoln who I view as a traitor to the Republic. It was just a quick cut and paste job.

[Truth Warrior]

They are not MY collective self-protection agencies. I'm explaining what government is, not what it should be.

People are stupid and cannot come up with a system of collective self-protection that actually protects them and allows people to do what they want all the time. Which is WHY your reply was non-responsive, as is this one BTW.

Well the aren't mine either, which is EXACTLY PART of my questions.

Care to try them again?

[Mesogen]

Which is WHY your reply was non-responsive, as is this one BTW.

Well the aren't mine either, which is EXACTLY PART of my questions.

Care to try them again?

You asked one question, "If rights are imaginary, then what is the legitimate purpose of government?"

My answer:

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect people from each other. It is to protect what I want from interfering with those things that you want and vice versa.

Some people think that we can live in a "voluntary" society. But, they usually begin to invoke some sort of mechanism intended to protect life and property. Whatever form that mechanism takes, it is by the above definition government.

[Truth Warrior]

You asked one question, "If rights are imaginary, then what is the legitimate purpose of government?"

My answer:

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect people from each other. It is to protect what I want from interfering with those things that you want and vice versa.

Some people think that we can live in a "voluntary" society. But, they usually begin to invoke some sort of mechanism intended to protect life and property. Whatever form that mechanism takes, it is by the above definition government. More actually, look for the "?" marks. ;)

I thought you were talking about what government is, not what it should be. Does it work?

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

Do you have a SWAG estimate of what percentage of human interactions ( society ) are "voluntary" over all?

Thanks! :)

[Xenophage]

We hold these truths to be self-evident
Yes these rights exist.
You either see it or you don't.

If you don't find it to be self-evident you may want to examine yourself, and find out what your problem is.

LOL.

Self-evident huh?

Intellectual cop-out. If you can't defend your rights rationally and provide a real explanation, YOU are the one who needs to re-examine things. The "self-evident" defense is the weakest defense of liberty that exists.

[hypnagogue]

Rights are a philosophical construction. They "exist" insomuch as they are put into practice.

[tremendoustie]

Can you provide evidence without using faith or god?

Good question. I think so, but I don't have time to organize my thoughts well right now. It does tie into the existance of God, but that's not the substance of the evidence, merely another related conclusion.

I just wanted to say, I realize you asked the right quesiton, I'll try to respond in the next few days -- I may put the whole thing together into the existance of god/non-physical thread and link here.

[Truth Warrior]

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

[pcosmar]

Great ploy.
For those that want to scrap the Constitution and to impost some form of collective "rights" the first step is to get rid of God. Not unsurprising.
The religion of socialism (humanism) is incompatible with individual rights.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Jut get rid of this and the rest falls apart.

I expect that they will do it. In fact, that has been predicted, and we are witnessing the end of this attempt at liberty, but I will still resist it.

I hope you enjoy your socialist utopia while it lasts. I don't expect that to be long.

[BillyDkid]

Quite logically, if there is no creator, then there are no innate rights. In the absence of a God, might makes right.Well, I'm an atheist and I believe in inalienable rights. I believe that our rights do not need to be granted by anyone, we just have them. "Creator" can mean your God or the deist God of the founders or whatever. The premise, the point of this country is that we all have them naturally and they don't need to be justified to anyone.

[mconder]

Well, I'm an atheist and I believe in inalienable rights. I believe that our rights do not need to be granted by anyone, we just have them. "Creator" can mean your God or the deist God of the founders or whatever. The premise, the point of this country is that we all have them naturally and they don't need to be justified to anyone.

I guess I could see natural right from the Atheist point of view. Everyone craps and eats out of the same orifices. Why is it some get to tell others what their rights are? Does it go something like that?

[torchbearer]

Well, I'm an atheist and I believe in inalienable rights. I believe that our rights do not need to be granted by anyone, we just have them. "Creator" can mean your God or the deist God of the founders or whatever. The premise, the point of this country is that we all have them naturally and they don't need to be justified to anyone.

Never thought about that... your "creator" could be your parents... and like a monarchy... your rights are inherited from your parents.
Your parents have rights...you inherit those same rights...

[idiom]

http://common-law.net/nap.html (http://common-law.net/nap.html)

..


It's satire, but very good satire.<IMHO> ;) :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Great ploy.
For those that want to scrap the Constitution and to impost some form of collective "rights" the first step is to get rid of God. Not unsurprising.
The religion of socialism (humanism) is incompatible with individual rights.

Jut get rid of this and the rest falls apart.

I expect that they will do it. In fact, that has been predicted, and we are witnessing the end of this attempt at liberty, but I will still resist it.

I hope you enjoy your socialist utopia while it lasts. I don't expect that to be long.

Not really. The first step for socialists is to replace God/gods with the State.

Anarcho-capitalists and libertarians like myself reject the legitimacy of the State in favor of the individual. The individual can worship (or not) as he pleases, so long as he does not infringe on the the life or liberties of another individual(s). :D This is very much compatible with individual rights.

How is it that you equate humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) with Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)? I've read about Socialism, and I don't see the absolute connection. :confused:

[mczerone]

Great ploy.
For those that want to scrap the Constitution and to impost some form of collective "rights" the first step is to get rid of God. Not unsurprising.
The religion of socialism (humanism) is incompatible with individual rights.



Jut get rid of this and the rest falls apart.

I expect that they will do it. In fact, that has been predicted, and we are witnessing the end of this attempt at liberty, but I will still resist it.

I hope you enjoy your socialist utopia while it lasts. I don't expect that to be long.

I agree that these are the rights that should properly be upheld, but I choose to construe the word "Creator" as "parents". I am human because of them, therefore I have all the rights of a human has.

I will let you believe there is one God if you let me believe there is none, deal?

[pcosmar]

How is it that you equate humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) with Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)? I've read about Socialism, and I don't see the absolute connection. :confused:

Not any one place but here and there over the years I have seen connections.
Though the idea of removing and replacing God is a very old idea. Replace God as supreme and make Man supreme.
This is a good place to start for some connections.
http://www.thebible1.net/biblicaltheism/organhuman.htm


The early harbingers of humanism were followed in 1933 by the publication of the first Humanist Manifesto. It was signed by thirty-four influential national leaders – the first and the most notable of which was John Dewey. This document rejected traditional Christian beliefs in favor of naturalism, materialism, rationalism and socialism. It also declared that the purpose of humanism is to evaluate, transform, control, and direct all institutions and organizations by its own value system. In short, this was a declaration that humanists intended to produce a cultural revolution by removing Christianity from its foundational underpinning of American society and by substituting humanistic religious beliefs in its place. Later major documents that would further specify humanistic ideologies and goals include Humanist Manifesto II (1973), A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980), and A Declaration of Interdependence: A New Global Ethics (1988).
Here is a quick Google search.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Fabian+society+humanism&btnG=Search
Look around and see if there is anything of interest.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not any one place but here and there over the years I have seen connections.
Though the idea of removing and replacing God is a very old idea. Replace God as supreme and make Man supreme.
This is a good place to start for some connections.
http://www.thebible1.net/biblicaltheism/organhuman.htm

oic. Yes, radicalism like that coming from any philosophy tends to be destructive. :(:p Thanx for the link, sir.

[pcosmar]

oic. Yes, radicalism like that coming from any philosophy tends to be destructive. :(:p Thanx for the link, sir.

You are welcome.
Here is some I just ran across.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20010816.htm


The problem with America's educational system began with the birth of socialism and given impetus by federal government involvement. Lenin, one of the world's leading experts on socialism, tells us - “Communism is socialism in a hurry.” Socialism, therefore, is communism by gradualism rather than by revolution. The socialist “Fabian Society,” the forerunner of most socialist groups in America, had as their motto “Make Haste Slowly.” “Democratic Socialism” became the battle cry to socialize the United States of America. The socialists' goal was to “permeate and penetrate,” then control this nation from deep within. Their first target in America was our children through public instruction.

In the U.S. their followers would use language as their first line of attack and deceit. They would wear no badge nor socialist label, but were to call themselves “liberal,” “progressive” and even “moderate.” Words were the weapon of choice for this new war. By changing and shifting word meanings the socialists could cover their true purpose. Everything would be done under the banners of “reform” and “social justice,” suggesting all was for the public good, for humanitarian reasons, for true democracy -- and finally -- for the children. The buzzwords of socialism were then, and are today, “social” and “democracy” (i.e. social science, social studies and socialization of the child). Robert Conquest observed, “a communist never does anything under his own name that he can do under someone else's.”

In the early 1900's, because of unrest in Europe, thousands of socialists flocked to America for safety. Large numbers held degrees in the fields of psychology, sociology and psychiatry (behavioral sciences, dealing with behavior and [social] change). Many went on to become college and university professors.

Norman Thomas, socialist and member of the Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

The story of how the socialists took over the American educational establishment would fill a book; so let us just listen to their own words.

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the 'Humanist Manifesto' and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America's teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

[Bman]

Quite logically, if there is no creator, then there are no innate rights. In the absence of a God, might makes right.

That just does not make a lick of sense to me.

See I am agnostic. And while in my adolescents I resorted to violence to settle disputes, I have lived the majority of my life in peace. And plan on maintaining such a stance. Now I'm a little self righteous. For example I do believe that cold blooded murderers and Rapist should be executed. But for some reason I believe a lot of christian folks could agree with that. I could be wrong.

Now it may be hard to believe. But god is not necissary to understand a value of relationship with your neighbor that provides peace, and prosperity. And it's self-evident because I exist.

[sirachman]

lol.

Rights as you imply do not exist. The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force. Existence does not impart rights on man; mans society or self allots right to himself through his wielded force, or an atmosphere of freedom defended by his fellows force.

That's the best way I can put it.

[Truth Warrior]

lol.

Rights as you imply do not exist. The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force. Existence does not impart rights on man; mans society or self allots right to himself through his wielded force, or an atmosphere of freedom defended by his fellows force.

That's the best way I can put it.


The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force. :D

:confused:

[sirachman]

Does that mean you want me to explain what I meant?

[Truth Warrior]

Does that mean you want me to explain what I meant? Not really. Your second sentence just seemed to contradict your first sentence. Am I confused?

But if you want to, go ahead. ;)

[sirachman]

lol.

Rights as you imply do not exist. The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force. Existence does not impart rights on man; mans society or self allots right to himself through his wielded force, or an atmosphere of freedom defended by his fellows force.

That's the best way I can put it.
Ok, I meant that you can have a right because society sufficiently defends it for you, or because you sufficiently defend it yourself. As in you can say that you have the right for freedom of speech, if the government sufficiently defends it then you have it, it not and you sufficiently defend that right against the government which tries to take it from you then you still have it, but if you cannot defend that right then you don't have it. This goes against the entitlement attached to what a 'right' is, but technically if there is no way to defend a rights existence it isn't a right is it? Just because something would be good if it were true doesn't make it a right, nor just because it is possible to be true.
Make any more sense?

[Feenix566]

How can you observe my Right to own my own body? Or my Right to plant whatever seeds I would like in my garden?


We reach our awareness of rights through two methods: induction and observation.

Consider two hypothetical societies. Society A is composed of individuals who respect each others' rights to plant whatever they want in their own gardens. Society B is composed of individuals who do not respect that right.

Society A will have many gardens growing many different kinds of plants. Some gardens will grow useful plants, and some will not. Those that do now grow useful plants will probably change their planting choices from one year to the next until they reach something that satisfies the planters' desires.

Society B will have a centrally planned gardening system, whereby some leader with social authority will decide what gets planted everywhere. There will be no diversity among gardens. If people are unhappy with the results of the system, they must ask the leader to change the entire planting system.

We can logically deduce that, all other things being equal, society A will be more prosperous, due to the diveristy of plant growth.

However, we are unable to prove this theory empirically, because we cannot conduct a controlled experiment where two societies are exactly equal except for their garden planting values. We can make broader statements, such as an observation of the complete failure of every single society in history with a centrally planned economy, and the comparitive abundance in societies with free enterprise. We can reach a conslusion that property rights enhance a society's prosperity. We can apply this broad statement to the issue of deciding what gets planted in your garden.



If you could observe a right, you could measure it - at least booleanly - and if you could measure rights, then you could compare them between people. Does everyone have equal rights? Do some people or groups have more or less than you or I? Well, I think we must agree that "rights" are equally bestowed upon all, and therefore can only be observed as being "present" or "absent" for each right. Does that then mean if we cannot observe someone's "right", that he doesn't have it?

We could definitely make logical deductions about the relative prosperity of societies that value equal rights compared to societies that value unequal ones.

[Truth Warrior]

Ok, I meant that you can have a right because society sufficiently defends it for you, or because you sufficiently defend it yourself. As in you can say that you have the right for freedom of speech, if the government sufficiently defends it then you have it, it not and you sufficiently defend that right against the government which tries to take it from you then you still have it, but if you cannot defend that right then you don't have it. This goes against the entitlement attached to what a 'right' is, but technically if there is no way to defend a rights existence it isn't a right is it? Just because something would be good if it were true doesn't make it a right, nor just because it is possible to be true.
Make any more sense? You're on the path to somewhere there.<IMHO> ;)

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

Keep working on it. Hint: Simplify. Who do you control?

Thanks! :)

[Mesogen]

Not really. Your second sentence just seemed to contradict your first sentence. Am I confused?

But if you want to, go ahead. ;)

Yes. You are confused.

Let me break it down for you.


The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force.

Your rights are really just your abilities.


Existence does not impart rights on man;

You're not born entitled to anything.


mans society or self allots right to himself through his wielded force,

Your rights are really just your abilities.


or an atmosphere of freedom defended by his fellows force.

Some people recognize that a threat to the abilities (rights) of others is a threat to their own abilities (rights) and try to protect each other.


More actually, look for the "?" marks. ;)

I thought you were talking about what government is, not what it should be. Does it work?

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

Do you have a SWAG estimate of what percentage of human interactions ( society ) are "voluntary" over all?

Thanks! :)

I have no idea what SWAG is. Unless you mean advertising and marketing crap that people hand out.

What percentage of voluntary actions are influenced or deterred by the knowledge that there could be retribution from the government? How many of these actions appear totally voluntary but are not?

But let me ask you something about your imaginary voluntary society. What happens in the case of murder? How is 'justice' served?

[Truth Warrior]

Yes. You are confused.

Let me break it down for you.



Your rights are really just your abilities.



You're not born entitled to anything.



Your rights are really just your abilities.



Some people recognize that a threat to the abilities (rights) of others is a threat to their own abilities (rights) and try to protect each other.

Thanks! But the question was NOT addressed to YOU. I got my clarification. ;)



I have no idea what SWAG is. Unless you mean advertising and marketing crap that people hand out.

What percentage of voluntary actions are influenced or deterred by the knowledge that there could be retribution from the government? How many of these actions appear totally voluntary but are not?

But let me ask you something about your imaginary voluntary society. What happens in the case of murder? How is 'justice' served?

SWAG = Scientific Wild Assed Guess.

No thanks, it's STILL your turn to answer.<IMHO> Hint: 305,886,372 http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html)





:)

[LibertyEagle]

Great ploy.
For those that want to scrap the Constitution and to impost some form of collective "rights" the first step is to get rid of God. Not unsurprising.
The religion of socialism (humanism) is incompatible with individual rights.



Jut get rid of this and the rest falls apart.

I expect that they will do it. In fact, that has been predicted, and we are witnessing the end of this attempt at liberty, but I will still resist it.

I hope you enjoy your socialist utopia while it lasts. I don't expect that to be long.

qft

The thing is, I don't think they realize they are falling for the very thing that is going to completely destroy the last bit of their liberty.

[Mesogen]

:)


That wasn't the question. :rolleyes:
..

[Mesogen]

qft

The thing is, I don't think they realize they are falling for the very thing that is going to completely destroy the last bit of their liberty.

Good lord.

When someone argues that there is no real such things as rights, they aren't saying that they don't want liberty.

I'll stand up for my "rights" and demand my "rights" and tell politicians and cops not to violate my "rights" and they'll know what I'm talking about.

[Theocrat]

Good lord.

When someone argues that there is no real such things as rights, they aren't saying that they don't want liberty.

I'll stand up for my "rights" and demand my "rights" and tell politicians and cops not to violate my "rights" and they'll know what I'm talking about.

How can liberty exist in a world of just matter and motion (as you believe), for liberty is neither?

[Truth Warrior]

.. Agreed! I'm waiting on you. :)

[SimpleName]

There is no such thing as a right. I just don't understand what they would be in the first place. They can't be something that is taken away, can they? And how could a right be GIVEN in the first place? Even if they are "natural" rights, they are given by God or as some people believe, rights are given by nature through the natural abilities of physics and anatomy. And if rights are given just by being in nature, the term "rights" has lost all its meaning, making them simply basic scientific abilities like every animal, plant, fungus, parasite and whatever other living thing on earth enjoys. All of this annoying philosophical nonsense is intelligently avoided by anarchists. They have the most solid footing in morality and nature (although I'd rather have very limited govt.). Anyway, I use the term "rights" basically just to communicate to people for now. Generally I relate it to the privileges as so explained by George Carlin. It is not worth battling about the meaning of a right when trying to explain to people how their "rights" are being taken away. lol. If that makes any sense...

[pcosmar]

^^Nope
Makes no sense at all. Sorry. :confused: :(

[strapko]

More rights than other... when all rights are the same... if there is a disparity, then someone's government has infringed on their rights.
So- you are talking about governments, and how much they try and tell people what their rights are...
If our rights came from government... then they are the master, and we are the slave.

Sorry for the late response, but I do not think you guys clearly understood my point. So this is my attempt to fix my conveyed idea. I do not know how to do the muti-quote thing, so I will respond one by one, please bear with me.

What my point about rights was that it is a HUMAN idea, just like the concept of god. They are not granted by governments, because the source comes from human philosophy; but make no mistake, rights can easily be taken away by governments. The reason for my first post was just to show that rights are Imaginary and if they were real concepts with intrinsic value, we would be much freer today, because everyone would know the existence of universal rights. Look at North Korea for example; everything there is centralized, almost no freedom; but look at Early America where rights were respected greatly, what is the difference? Human Philosophy is the different, some chose to fight for rights which make them exist and some don't and they have NO rights. This is where rights come from Human Philosophy(imagination), they cannot be giving by the creator because there is no proof of such a being.

[strapko]

More rights than other... when all rights are the same... if there is a disparity, then someone's government has infringed on their rights.
So- you are talking about governments, and how much they try and tell people what their rights are...
If our rights came from government... then they are the master, and we are the slave.


Just because some countries choose to ignore rights, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Natural law is everywhere. It is unavoidable.

Some automobile designers account for the fact that parts degrade over time. Some do not. This doesn't mean the law of automobile part degredation doesn't exist for those who choose to ignore it. What it means is that cars designed by people who don't account for part degredation will be less reliable than those created by designers who accept it.

Likewise, societies created by people who choose to ignore natural rights will be less prosperous than societies created by people who accept them.

What Natural Law are you talking about? The Natural law which gives the ability for a wolf to kill a deer? The Natural law that allowed many holocausts to happen?

Societies created by people do not choose to ignore natural law, it does not exist.

[strapko]

I think YOU are asking the wrong question. Rights do NOT originate from governments. They just call them rights, ONLY to confuse, con and suck you into willingly participate in their scams.<IMHO> ;)

"It's tough to fight an enemy that maintains an outpost in your mind."


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

I never said they originate from governments, if i did, quote me directly. I said governments can take rights away and the proof is on my side. Thus I was concluding that rights are not universal, but human concepts. Some societies just choose to fight for freedoms, some don't. They do not exist in societies that don't fight for them. I was calling them rights, so I was able to label what I am talking about. My mind is very free, I do not believe anything governments tell me, matter of fact I do not believe 99% of everything lol unless its undeniable logic fact.

Call it w.e you want Freedoms, rights, natural laws.

[silverhandorder]

My rights come from me and no one else. I know that because I posses a rational mind that can decide for it self. Any right that I enjoy is the right that I am willing to fight for or die.




What Natural Law are you talking about? The Natural law which gives the ability for a wolf to kill a deer? The Natural law that allowed many holocausts to happen?

Societies created by people do not choose to ignore natural law, it does not exist.

What does relationship between a predator and prey have anything to do with Natural Law? For that matter how did Natural Law allow genocide? Are you even familiar with the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)?


I never said they originate from governments, if i did, quote me directly. I said governments can take rights away and the proof is on my side. Thus I was concluding that rights are not universal, but human concepts. Some societies just choose to fight for freedoms, some don't. They do not exist in societies that don't fight for them. I was calling them rights, so I was able to label what I am talking about. My mind is very free, I do not believe anything governments tell me, matter of fact I do not believe 99% of everything lol unless its undeniable logic fact.

Call it w.e you want Freedom, rights, natural law.
This is false. Government can not take a right away from you as long as you posses free will. What you are trying to say is tat they intimidate you enough where you will not use your right.

[strapko]

[Emphasis mine]

So, even though rights are imaginary (according to you and George Carlin), we still have to fight for them? Why fight for something which you believe doesn't exist? Is that not superstition of the highest sort?

Yes, if you want to be free you have to fight for it. If you do not you wont be free. Its human philosophy and way of life. Some like socialism, communism. I like the philosophy of Freedom and want to live with that philosophy. Why do rights need to be printed on paper if they truly exist like god?

[silverhandorder]

Yes, if you want to be free you have to fight for it. If you do not you wont be free. Its human philosophy and way of life. Some like socialism, communism. I like the philosophy of Freedom and want to live with that philosophy. Why do rights need to be printed on paper if they truly exist like god?

You contradict your self here. You yourself espouse to believing in freedom. Freedom is a right that comes from your self. It is not imaginary, it is tangible if you know what freedom is. It is not invented by anyone, no matter of what government say you are free to act as you please. The government can only put consequence in your use of freedom.

[strapko]

My rights come from me and no one else. I know that because I posses a rational mind that can decide for it self. Any right that I enjoy is the right that I am willing to fight for or die.





What does relationship between a predator and prey have anything to do with Natural Law? For that matter how did Natural Law allow genocide? Are you even familiar with the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)?


This is false. Government can not take a right away from you as long as you posses free will. What you are trying to say is tat they intimidate you enough where you will not use your right.


Point number one proves my point that it is a human concept, the concept of your rights. This was my point as well, that rights come from humans.

Of course a government can, for instance every time the Fed prints money they just taken a piece of your property, what about the Japanese interminate camps, the Japanese didn't have a right of a proper case did they? What about the Oven baked Jewish people do they still have their rights? I DON'T THINK SO!

[strapko]

You contradict your self here. You yourself espouse to believing in freedom. Freedom is a right that comes from your self. It is not imaginary, it is tangible if you know what freedom is. It is not invented by anyone, no matter of what government say you are free to act as you please. The government can only put consequence in your use of freedom.

I was talking about rights, I know the concept of freedom and like the philosophy. But do not be mistaking governments can take away freedom, its as simple as putting a bullet in ones head.

[strapko]

Rights and freedom is two different things. One is privileged.

[silverhandorder]

Rights and freedom is two different things. One is privileged.

There is your problem you do not recognize freedom as a right. It is the essential right from which everything else is derived. Go back to philosophy class my friend.

[Feenix566]

What Natural Law are you talking about? The Natural law which gives the ability for a wolf to kill a deer? The Natural law that allowed many holocausts to happen?

Societies created by people do not choose to ignore natural law, it does not exist.

If the wolves hunt the deer to extinction, they will starve. If the holocaust eliminates a large group of otherwise productive members of society, the society's standard of living will suffer.

They aren't perfect solutions, but they are the natural consequences of poor decisions. That's natural law.

[Feenix566]

Would it be possible for a society to exist without rights? Yes, of course it would. But what would that society be like? It would be terrible! There would be no innovation, no motivation, no production, no wealth, and ultimately no happiness. North Korea is a perfect example. They have no rights, and as a result there are farmers literally dying of starvation while they grow food eaten by their socialist overlords.

So you take a society with rights, like America, and you compare it to a society without rights, like North Korea. You can clearly see the difference! How can anyone look at that picture and claim that rights don't really exist? If rights were some made-up fantasy with no bearing on reality, then the two societies would be the same, wouldn't they?

[strapko]

There is your problem you do not recognize freedom as a right. It is the essential right from which everything else is derived. Go back to philosophy class my friend.

Freedom is not a right, do not confuse the English language.

[strapko]

Would it be possible for a society to exist without rights? Yes, of course it would. But what would that society be like? It would be terrible! There would be no innovation, no motivation, no production, no wealth, and ultimately no happiness. North Korea is a perfect example. They have no rights, and as a result there are farmers literally dying of starvation while they grow food eaten by their socialist overlords.

So you take a society with rights, like America, and you compare it to a society without rights, like North Korea. You can clearly see the difference! How can anyone look at that picture and claim that rights don't really exist? If rights were some made-up fantasy with no bearing on reality, then the two societies would be the same, wouldn't they?

I was not arguing that I do not support rights or do not favor them do not. I was arguing that rights is a human concept and they can and have been taken away by governments. Of course I would prefer rights over none, but that is not what I am arguing. I was arguing that rights are imaginary and always privileged otherwise it wouldn't be called rights. Freedom on the other hand is a self-evident concept, but can also be taken away.

[Mesogen]

You contradict your self here. You yourself espouse to believing in freedom. Freedom is a right that comes from your self. It is not imaginary, it is tangible if you know what freedom is. It is not invented by anyone, no matter of what government say you are free to act as you please. The government can only put consequence in your use of freedom.

Saying that freedom is a right is saying that you are entitled to it simply by existing.

This is not the case.

You can claim that it is and believe that it is.

But then I can claim all your property belongs to me. I can fight for my rights (that you are violating) and kill you and take my rightful possessions.

Who are you to tell me what my rights are and are not?

[silverhandorder]

Saying that freedom is a right is saying that you are entitled to it simply by existing.

This is not the case.

You can claim that it is and believe that it is.

But then I can claim all your property belongs to me. I can fight for my rights (that you are violating) and kill you and take my rightful possessions.

Who are you to tell me what my rights are and are not?

No one can take away your rights short of killing you. This is why freedom is a right. As long as I am alive I have a choice. I can either fight you back or do nothing. That is the whole point. Thinking that rights are not real and are a human concept is to surrender to might makes right mentality.

[Feenix566]

I was not arguing that I do not support rights or do not favor them do not. I was arguing that rights is a human concept and they can and have been taken away by governments. Of course I would prefer rights over none, but that is not what I am arguing. I was arguing that rights are imaginary and always privileged otherwise it wouldn't be called rights. Freedom on the other hand is a self-evident concept, but can also be taken away.

Just because rights can be violated, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Think of rights as a measuring stick for morality. You can use them to measure how moral a society is. Some societies enforce human rights, and some do not. But just because some societies don't measure up, that doesn't mean the measuring stick doesn't exist! It just means they have a bad score. They can choose to ignore it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[Mesogen]

No one can take away your rights short of killing you. This is why freedom is a right. As long as I am alive I have a choice. I can either fight you back or do nothing. That is the whole point. Thinking that rights are not real and are a human concept is to surrender to might makes right mentality.

Might may not make right (which is subjective) but might sure makes what happens. And whether your rights are real or not, the outcome is the same.

[Mesogen]

Think of rights as a measuring stick for morality.

Well, see, is morality anything more than a human concept?

You and I won't agree on what is moral and what is not. It's subjective. So which rights exist or not is also subjective.

I could argue that we all have the right to take a crap in the middle of the street. If I exercise that right, others may object and say, for one reason or another, that I do not have that right. But it's their opinion versus mine.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just because rights can be violated, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Think of rights as a measuring stick for morality. You can use them to measure how moral a society is. Some societies enforce human rights, and some do not. But just because some societies don't measure up, that doesn't mean the measuring stick doesn't exist! It just means they have a bad score. They can choose to ignore it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Once again, not all rights are the same.
We need to rethink our science. Our Founding-Fathers created our government by the use of the science of natural-law. Since then, the more modern theoretical sciences have moved politics away from viewing mankind as centrally universal and away from the unique American perspective of viewing his and her contentment as centrally existential. We need to think seriously about:

1. Having science serve the people in regards to their comfort and happiness rather than have it serve some kind of abstract purpose outside of and totally seperate from the existential well-being of the people.

2. Whether or not the social sciences are really sciences. The social-scientists have stepped in to become society's wise elders, replacing parenting and devaluing the importance of grandparents in the raising of children.

[Theocrat]

I can't imagine an "atheist" who argues that God doesn't exist because we can't see Him rationally concluding that rights exist, even though we can't see them. This is logically inconsistent. Yet, I want to know how any materialist can know for sure that rights exist when rights are invisible by nature.

[BillyDkid]

I can't imagine an "atheist" who argues that God doesn't exist because we can't see Him rationally concluding that rights exist, even though we can't see them. This is logically inconsistent. Yet, I want to know how any materialist can know for sure that rights exist when rights are invisible by nature.
This nation was founded on the premise that we all have certain inalienable rights - that is to say, we decided to agree we all have these rights because that is the way to have the most humane society. Abstractions such as rights can not be said to exist in the same way a rock can be said to exist. Our rights as the founders envisioned them were based on the principles of the enlightenment - that all men are created equal and are entitled to the same rights. It doesn't matter where we say those rights came from or that they came from anywhere. What is important is that we agree that we all have the same rights. To suppose otherwise is to argue that some people have rights over other people, which is certainly a far less defensible proposition than saying we all have the same rights. It's either we have rights over ourselves or other have rights over us (or we over them). It seems more than obvious to say that one view is far more just than the other.

[Josh_LA]

Rights do not exist any more than age and race exist, they only exist if you acknowledge them.

[Kraig]

Rights do not exist any more than age and race exist, they only exist if you acknowledge them.

The fact that things grow older and deteriorate exists whether you acknowledge it or not, this is what we call age.

That fact there there are slightly different sub-species of human from a biological standpoint exists whether you acknowledge it or not, this is what we call race.

[silverhandorder]

Might may not make right (which is subjective) but might sure makes what happens. And whether your rights are real or not, the outcome is the same.

You are putting those who would deny you your rights on the same moral ground as you if think that rights are just imaginary/concepts.

[idiom]

You are putting those who would deny you your rights on the same moral ground as you if think that rights are just imaginary/concepts.

So? Moraltiy is made up too.

Some like Theo believe that God makes Morality up.

Others seem to think Morality is written out on Flaming letters forty stories tall somewhere?

[Josh_LA]

The fact that things grow older and deteriorate exists whether you acknowledge it or not, this is what we call age.

That fact there there are slightly different sub-species of human from a biological standpoint exists whether you acknowledge it or not, this is what we call race.

yes, the fact is people CAN murder another with complete disrespect for life and property, just because we don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it's not true.

[idiom]

I do believe a grevious category mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake)is being made here.

This type of error was not well understood within philosophy when the declarations were written so the poor wording is understandable.

Rights or Privileges exist only as clauses in contracts. They are not things that can exist in the presence of one person or even as things or concepts on their own.

To claim that rights 'exist' as entities is to fail to understand them.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I do believe a grevious category mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake)is being made here.

This type of error was not well understood within philosophy when the declarations were written so the poor wording is understandable.

Rights or Privileges exist only as clauses in contracts. They are not things that can exist in the presence of one person or even as things or concepts on their own.

To claim that rights 'exist' as entities is to fail to understand them.

Once again, a natural right did not exist on the psychological / sociological level because such science did not exist during the time of our Founding-Fathers and the time of theoretical science. The type of sciences that existed during their time were the physcial ones and their conclusions existed not as theoretical but as natural-law ones.
So, a natural-right literally existed on the physical level where such rights reduced down like DnA to become the bipartisan conscience of every human soul. Undeniably, indelibly irrefutable as in open and shut.
Don't like this American way? Move to Europe.

[Josh_LA]

I can't imagine an "atheist" who argues that God doesn't exist because we can't see Him rationally concluding that rights exist, even though we can't see them. This is logically inconsistent. Yet, I want to know how any materialist can know for sure that rights exist when rights are invisible by nature.

I agree, it's people who believe in imaginary things like God and toothfairy that actually believe in things like rights. I believe rights only exists for those who believe it and exercise it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I agree, it's people who believe in imaginary things like God and toothfairy that actually believe in things like rights. I believe rights only exists for those who believe it and exercise it.

If the parts making up the economy of the system are corrupt, then the overall system making it up is corrupt. This phenomenon led to Friedrich Nietzsche's break down unto nihilism and his prediction of World War. The system of the Catholic church seemed virtuous at the time while the individual parts manning the religious system were rotten to the core.
One can argue that the United States no longer has the parts deserving of its whole having a great economy.