God & Rights

[ourlongroad]

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?

Before you answer, let me refer you to this key passage in the American Declaration of Independence....


.....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....

Please, serious answers only, as I think this is an important question that needs to be fleshed-out here given some of the recent discussions I've observed. Thank you.

[UtahApocalypse]

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?

Before you answer, let me refer you to this key passage in the American Declaration of Independence....



Please, serious answers only, as I think this is an important question that needs to be fleshed-out here given some of the recent discussions I've observed. Thank you.

My mommy and daddy created me. they passed there genes, rights, and evolution along to me with their genes.

[ourlongroad]

My mommy and daddy created me. they passed there genes, rights, and evolution along to me with their genes.
If your "mommy and daddy..... passed there rights" onto you, then they can take them (your rights) away. Some how I don't think that was the Founding Fathers intent.

[hillbilly123069]

There are no athiests in foxholes.That's why "every" state Constitution,and obviously the US Constitution, in this country gives credit to Our Almighty Father for the gift of this country and Our freedoms.Those offended should read up on what was going on up to the point of our declaring Independence and how we won that war.The unbeatable odds that our ancestors were up against.The fact that the were being walked all over and that they knew they had nothing to lose by saying they had had enough.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?

Before you answer, let me refer you to this key passage in the American Declaration of Independence....



Please, serious answers only, as I think this is an important question that needs to be fleshed-out here given some of the recent discussions I've observed. Thank you.

From the principle of self ownership. Rights are just ethical concepts that are the logical conclusion from this principle.

[mmink15]

I'll second the answer 2_Thumbs_Up gave.

As to the myth of no atheists in foxholes: http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/

[Theocrat]

There are no athiests in foxholes.That's why "every" state Constitution,and obviously the US Constitution, in this country gives credit to Our Almighty Father for the gift of this country and Our freedoms.Those offended should read up on what was going on up to the point of our declaring Independence and how we won that war.The unbeatable odds that our ancestors were up against.The fact that the were being walked all over and that they knew they had nothing to lose by saying they had had enough.

Well, if there are "atheists" in foxholes, there were none who signed any of our Founding documents. Even our State Constitutions (http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html) reference God as the One Who gives us our rights to life, liberty, property, etc. as free citizens, not reason, not science, not free markets. Those things aren't wrong, but they come from a proper context, and that context is from an acknowledgment of our divine Creator Who controls all things in the universe.

[phill4paul]

Well, if there are "atheists" in foxholes, there were none who signed any of our Founding documents. Even our State Constitutions (http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html) reference God as the One Who gives us our rights to life, liberty, property, etc. as free citizens, not reason, not science, not free markets. Those things aren't wrong, but they come from a proper context, and that context is from an acknowledgment of our divine Creator Who controls all things in the universe.

And yet, of all these Christian founders, they still did not create a theocracy. Thank gawd reason prevailed.:rolleyes:

No atheists in foxholes? Maybe you should have a chat with these guys.

http://www.maaf.info/expaif.html

[surf]

this always brings me back to the question: do atheists and agnostics not have the same rights as religious folks? i think we'd all have to answer that atheists and agnostics have = rights to those that worship a god or gods: life, liberty, and property.

whether or not you believe the world was created in 7 days or a few million years of evolution does not and should not have any bearing on what rights you have.

it's kind of a meaningless question that seems to wish to direct people to religion while ignoring the point that if you do not believe in a god or gods you still retain your "rights."

Was Christmas developed to celebrate the birth of Jesus, or is it just a celebration that, coincidently, mirrors signs that the sun is returning to the northern hemisphere and days are getting measurably longer?

[Theocrat]

And yet, of all these Christian founders, they still did not create a theocracy. Thank gawd reason prevailed.:rolleyes:

No atheists in foxholes? Maybe you should have a chat with these guys.

http://www.maaf.info/expaif.html

Well, it depends on your definition of what a theocracy is. If your definition supposes that a church body has the ultimate authority over what the State does, then your definition of a theocracy is false. That would be an "ecclesiocracy," which, of course, is wrong.

However, if we take "theocracy" to mean the rule of God over all things (including individuals, families, churches, and civil government) and the only legitimate Granter of rights, Giver of life, liberty, and property, then we're on the right track of what a theocracy truly is. Our Founders unequivocally believed this to be the case about God (as written in our Preambles, declarations, and other political writings), and therefore, in that sense, they were theocrats.

Our system of government presupposes a theocracy, where there is a separation of powers between the various branches of civil government to keep one person from taking the place of God in ruling over every affair of mankind. God rules, not man, which is why we also were never established to be a democracy.

Yes, I agree that there can be "atheists" in foxholes sometimes, but even still, that proves nothing, to me. Just as "atheists" can put their own lives on the line for a good cause, they also use reason and science. The point is "atheists" have no way to justify why they do or use those things, given the assumptions of their worldview. Philosophically speaking, "atheists" have to borrow from a theistic assumption about rights, honor, or reason in order to explain why we should use these things. Otherwise, giving one's life for a good cause is meaningless in a world of just matter and molecules in motion, and that is what "atheism" teaches.

[phill4paul]

Well, it depends on your definition of what a theocracy is. If your definition supposes that a church body has the ultimate authority over what the State does, then your definition of a theocracy is false. That would be an "ecclesiocracy," which, of course, is wrong.

Thank you for the semantics lesson. Honestly and with no malice to you. It took me a bit to read up a little on the difference and you are correct. I am also glad to hear that you feel an ecclesiocracy is wrong.


However, if we take "theocracy" to mean the rule of God over all things (including individuals, families, churches, and civil government) and the only legitimate Granter of rights, Giver of life, liberty, and property, then we're on the right track of what a theocracy truly is. Our Founders unequivocally believed this to be the case about God (as written in our Preambles, declarations, and other political writings), and therefore, in that sense, they were theocrats.

I see no where in the Preamble to the Constitution unequivicable belief in a Christian God. Whithin our Declaration of Independence there is this "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." They did not acknowledge the Christian God as their "Creator". Political writings are irrevelant.



Our system of government presupposes a theocracy, where there is a separation of powers between the various branches of civil government to keep one person from taking the place of God in ruling over every affair of mankind. God rules, not man, which is why we also were never established to be a democracy.

I can see where you might see a presupposition within the context of the Founders political writings when viewed in context with the founding documents. However, nowhere in any of the founding documents is there a direct correlation to adherence to the Old and New Testiments of the Christian belief.



Yes, I agree that there can be "atheists" in foxholes sometimes, but even still, that proves nothing, to me. Just as "atheists" can put their own lives on the line for a good cause, they also use reason and science. The point is "atheists" have no way to justify why they do or use those things, given the assumptions of their worldview. Philosophically speaking, "atheists" have to borrow from a theistic assumption about rights, honor, or reason in order to explain why we should use these things. Otherwise, giving one's life for a good cause is meaningless in a world of just matter and molecules in motion, and that is what "atheism" teaches..

As to what one chooses to believe or disbeleive regarding the nature of atheists or Christian I have no care. For I am neither. If it makes you feel better to believe that atheiest would not be atheists whithout the benefit of the Old and New Testements more power to you.

[Zeeder]

Yes, I agree that there can be "atheists" in foxholes sometimes, but even still, that proves nothing, to me. Just as "atheists" can put their own lives on the line for a good cause, they also use reason and science. The point is "atheists" have no way to justify why they do or use those things, given the assumptions of their worldview. Philosophically speaking, "atheists" have to borrow from a theistic assumption about rights, honor, or reason in order to explain why we should use these things. Otherwise, giving one's life for a good cause is meaningless in a world of just matter and molecules in motion, and that is what "atheism" teaches.

I've always found it funny that christians think giving there lives mean something............when they know they will live forever.

An atheist giving his/her life in a cause is far more "honorable" knowing that they will really die.............as opposed to living forever in a land of magic. Or even more if you believe they will burn forever.

Everyone is born with the same rights. It doesn't matter where those rights came from. Jesus, Buddha, or whatever "God" you want. Atheist worship Reason. That is their God. To us that is what the constitution says. It doesn't say Jesus.

[RonPaulMania]

Take God away from rights and you are positing man is self-invested with rights without proof or reasonable conclusions either through induction or deduction, which cannot bring you to those conclusions independently of a Creator. If evolution without a Creator is the source of life than why do we have rights and not animals?

If the recipe for rights were Existence + Humanity = Rights then I would question every other living being with the same question of what gives you rights?

As individuals we gave ourselves nothing from life, to our essence in our humanity, to the fruits of the world. It's modern arrogance to say what you have, and no, it's not an opinion, it's a fact if you were honest enough to reach with diligent study and an open mind that knows when to close it when it reaches truth.

[idiom]

Well the constitution could declare that the rights are inalieanable by the government. Then they are going to stay there without a supermajority vote.

Self-ownership, is a principle, not a self-evident universal truth.

The ideas that America is founded on, are precious and transient. If the principles were enforced by God or the Universe then every country on Earth would be a libertarian paradise.

[Theocrat]

I've always found it funny that christians think giving there lives mean something............when they know they will live forever.

An atheist giving his/her life in a cause is far more "honorable" knowing that they will really die.............as opposed to living forever in a land of magic. Or even more if you believe they will burn forever.

Everyone is born with the same rights. It doesn't matter where those rights came from. Jesus, Buddha, or whatever "God" you want. Atheist worship Reason. That is their God. To us that is what the constitution says. It doesn't say Jesus.

Like most "atheists" on this forum, you really have not thought through the philosophical implications of your own view of the world. As materialists, "atheists" cannot claim there can be such things as "rights" in the world because rights are not made of matter. Unless an "atheist" argues that rights are simply what the electrochemical/biological functions inside us tell us, they really shouldn't even speak about such a concept. Rights cannot exist in an "atheist" universe of just random evolutionary processes.

As a matter of fact, since living things evolve, then why can't the "atheist" conclude the same for rights? Maybe the rights we have today will be lost tomorrow, just as they have for animals and plants. But, no "atheist" will say that, even though that is a rational deduction from their worldview. Instead, they will insist (even belligerently at times) that humans have rights when they have no way to justify the concept of "rights" in a material world. Once again, when an "atheist" appeals to "rights," he is borrowing from a Christian worldview because within a Christian worldview, rights can be made sense of. As universal, immaterial realities, rights come from a universal and immaterial Being, namely, God. Rights make sense in a Christian worldview, but they do not make sense in an "atheistic" one.

As far as you worshiping reason, how can you? Reason is not a material entity, so how can an "atheist" worship something outside of matter? Also, reason does not justify itself. It has to be based on some standard which can differentiate objectively between reason and absurdity. The only way that is possible is by the existence of an eternal God Who Himself is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, reason becomes arbitrary and subject to personal opinion. For instance, it might be reasonable for one person to steal money from a poor person who is defenseless. To another person, it might be reasonable to cheat on a test in class because they didn't study the night before. Yet another person might reason that logic is a sufficient way to debate someone. Ultimately, we could never know which of these scenarios was the most reasonable one without a standard to judge them by. As a Christian, I believe in using reason, and better yet, I have a sufficient reason for reason itself. It reflects the character and thinking of God and how He expects all of us to think and carry on our thoughts.

Realistically, reason is based on faith, as in what one believes about the nature of reality, morality, truth, logic, beauty, etc. What you assume about these things (whether it's naturalistic or supernaturalistic) will determine what you consider reason to be and its foundation. The same applies to the notion of rights.

[idiom]

Like most "atheists" on this forum, you really have not thought through the philosophical implications of your own view of the world. As materialists, "atheists" cannot claim there can be such things as "rights" in the world because rights are not made of matter. Unless an "atheist" argues that rights are simply what the electrochemical/biological functions inside us tell us, they can't even speak about such a concept. Rights cannot exist in an "atheist" universe of just random evolutionary processes.

As a matter of fact, since living things evolve, then why can't the "atheist" conclude the same for rights? Maybe the rights we have today will be lost tomorrow, just as they have for animals and plants. But, no "atheist" will say that, even though that is a rational deduction from their worldview. Instead, they will insist (even belligerently at times) that humans have rights when they have no way to justify the concept of "rights" in a material world. Once again, when an "atheist" appeals to "rights," he is borrowing from a Christian worldview because within a Christian worldview, rights can be made sense of. As universal, immaterial realities, rights come from a universal and immaterial Being, namely, God. Rights make sense in a Christian worldview, but they do not make sense in an "atheistic" one.

As far as you worshiping reason, how can you? Reason is not a material entity, so how can an "atheist" worship something outside of matter? Also, reason does not justify itself. It has to be based on some standard which can differentiate objectively between reason and absurdity. The only way that is possible is by the existence of an eternal God Who Himself is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, reason becomes arbitrary and subject to personal opinion. For instance, it might be reasonable for one person to steal money from a poor person who is defenseless. To another person, it might be reasonable to cheat on a test in class because they didn't study the night before. Yet another person might reason that logic is a sufficient way to debate someone. Ultimately, we could never know which of these scenarios was the most reasonable one without a standard to judge them by. As a Christian, I believe in using reason, and better yet, I have a sufficient reason for reason itself. It reflects the character and thinking of God and how He expects all of us to think and carry on our thoughts.

Realistically, reason is based on faith, as in what one believes about the nature of reality, morality, truth, logic, beauty, etc. What you assume about these things (whether it's naturalistic or supernaturalistic) will determine what you consider reason to be and its foundation. The same applies to the notion of rights.

I think you might be wrong with that one Theo.

Rights, like Physical Laws, are maintained by machinery operating deep within Mount Olympus.

[Zeeder]

Like most "atheists" on this forum, you really have not thought through the philosophical implications of your own view of the world. As materialists, "atheists" cannot claim there can be such things as "rights" in the world because rights are not made of matter. Unless an "atheist" argues that rights are simply what the electrochemical/biological functions inside us tell us, they really shouldn't even speak about such a concept. Rights cannot exist in an "atheist" universe of just random evolutionary processes.

As a matter of fact, since living things evolve, then why can't the "atheist" conclude the same for rights? Maybe the rights we have today will be lost tomorrow, just as they have for animals and plants. But, no "atheist" will say that, even though that is a rational deduction from their worldview. Instead, they will insist (even belligerently at times) that humans have rights when they have no way to justify the concept of "rights" in a material world. Once again, when an "atheist" appeals to "rights," he is borrowing from a Christian worldview because within a Christian worldview, rights can be made sense of. As universal, immaterial realities, rights come from a universal and immaterial Being, namely, God. Rights make sense in a Christian worldview, but they do not make sense in an "atheistic" one.

As far as you worshiping reason, how can you? Reason is not a material entity, so how can an "atheist" worship something outside of matter? Also, reason does not justify itself. It has to be based on some standard which can differentiate objectively between reason and absurdity. The only way that is possible is by the existence of an eternal God Who Himself is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise, reason becomes arbitrary and subject to personal opinion. For instance, it might be reasonable for one person to steal money from a poor person who is defenseless. To another person, it might be reasonable to cheat on a test in class because they didn't study the night before. Yet another person might reason that logic is a sufficient way to debate someone. Ultimately, we could never know which of these scenarios was the most reasonable one without a standard to judge them by. As a Christian, I believe in using reason, and better yet, I have a sufficient reason for reason itself. It reflects the character and thinking of God and how He expects all of us to think and carry on our thoughts.

Realistically, reason is based on faith, as in what one believes about the nature of reality, morality, truth, logic, beauty, etc. What you assume about these things (whether it's naturalistic or supernaturalistic) will determine what you consider reason to be and its foundation. The same applies to the notion of rights.
That was some major platitudeosis going on.

I might tend to agree with idiom. Maybe physical laws and rights come from deep inside Zeus's head.( Maybe gravity doesn't exist because it isn't matter right?)
You do realize that there are people, who thinks it's perfectly reasonable to steal money from a poor defenseless person right? Despite your god saying otherwise(in magic book none the less). One can only conclude that your god doesn't exist i guess, since obviously reason is in the eye of the beholder.
I suggest you read some KANT.



I'm glad that you agree that christian deaths are meaningless when given for a good cause because they are going to live forever anyway though.

[idiom]

Kant was an idiot.

He thought Absolute morality existed somewhere.

[Bman]

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?

Before you answer, let me refer you to this key passage in the American Declaration of Independence....



Please, serious answers only, as I think this is an important question that needs to be fleshed-out here given some of the recent discussions I've observed. Thank you.

You seem to believe your question lays a foundation for an argument that an atheist, who believes in unalienable rights while disputing the concept of a creator, is living a contradiction.

However, I view your question as a contradiction. The whole ability to question whether God does or does not exist is an unalienable right.

That is what unalienable rights are. They are your ability to choose what you believe. People have been punished for what they believe. And while at times this could certainly be called a violation of ones liberty's. It certainly is not a violation of ones unalienable rights.

How can an atheist not understand unalienable rights? It's what makes them exist. If their were no atheists you'd be more likely to make a claim that unalienable rights do not exist. The foundation of which would be that if we all believed in god, how could we also not believe that all of our action were not part of gods plan. Which would kind of defeat unalienable rights since you would actually have no control over your life. Or more importantly your choice about what you thought about something.

I throw the question revised back at you.

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while accepting the concept of a creator?

Before you answer let me remind you. How can one have unalienable rights if a creator is controlling your actions.

[He Who Pawns]

Well our "Creator" could have been the Cosmos itself. The Declaration doesn't say anything about Burning Bushes or magical partings of seas or any of that fairytale nonsense.

[idiom]

You seem to believe your question lays a foundation for an argument that an atheist, who believes in unalienable rights while disputing the concept of a creator, is living a contradiction.

However, I view your question as a contradiction. The whole ability to question whether God does or does not exist is an unalienable right.

That is what unalienable rights are. They are your ability to choose what you believe. People have been punished for what they believe. And while at times this could certainly be called a violation of ones liberty's. It certainly is not a violation of ones unalienable rights.

How can an atheist not understand unalienable rights? It's what makes them exist. If their were no atheists you'd be more likely to make a claim that unalienable rights do not exist. The foundation of which would be that if we all believed in god, how could we also not believe that all of our action were not part of gods plan. Which would kind of defeat unalienable rights since you would actually have no control over your life. Or more importantly your choice about what you thought about something.

I throw the question revised back at you.

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while accepting the concept of a creator?

Before you answer let me remind you. How can one have unalienable rights if a creator is controlling your actions.

You have to believe in a Creator who creates free will among other things. You are correct that this is not a universal view.

You don't have rights under a lot of these systems either. God, for one, won't answer to your claims of rights.

[ourlongroad]

You seem to believe your question lays a foundation for an argument that an atheist, who believes in unalienable rights while disputing the concept of a creator, is living a contradiction.
They are.


The whole ability to question whether God does or does not exist is an unalienable right.

That is what unalienable rights are. They are your ability to choose what you believe.
Sure, people can believe and do as they please as long as they don't impact anyone else unalienable rights.

I'm not telling people what to do or what not to do, I'm simply trying to figure out if there is a logical construct around this obvious contradiction.


People have been punished for what they believe. And while at times this could certainly be called a violation of ones liberty's. It certainly is not a violation of ones unalienable rights.
Sure there punishment is a violation, depending on the specifics, it is most likely an infringement on someones pursuit of life and/or happiness, among other pursuits.


Before you answer let me remind you. How can one have unalienable rights if a creator is controlling your actions.
It's a logical construct for living ones life, that's what John Locke's philosophy is, and the one that the US Republic is founded on. The Creator is not controlling anyone's actions, as men do that to other men. The Creator is mechanism for ensuring that men cannot alter other men's unalienable rights.

If a Creator does not exist in this system, then where exactly do you get your unalienable rights from? Or, if you do not agree with this system, what system do you live under?

By the way, Creator is capitalized!

[powerofreason]

Apparently you've never heard the theory of natural rights.

[powerofreason]

For A New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

pages 26 and 27 specifically

[ourlongroad]

Apparently you've never heard the theory of natural rights.


For A New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

pages 26 and 27 specifically
I've read the material to which you refer, would you please like to expand on the point that you are attempting to make. Thanks.

[Bman]

They are.

Ok. You obviously didn't understand a thing I said.

You'll never understand someone who does not believe in god. Mainly your god. You will never understand that people have thoughts. These thoughts are self evident in proving you have unalienable rights. Your thoughts are your thoughts. People may share your thoughts, but they are not you. You do not have to share someone elses thought. There is nothing forcing you to believe what someone else believes. Now if you need a creator (and yeah I didn't capitolize, really get the OCD under control. Things like that happen) to believe that you have thoughts well then more power to you, but if you can not comprehend how someone who doesn't believe in god is capable of free thought, well I don't know what to tell you.

Your question is a complete contradiction. That fact that you cannot see that really is not my problem.

Have fun trying to figuring it out. I suggest giving it up.

[ourlongroad]

Ok. You obviously didn't understand a thing I said.

You'll never understand someone who does not believe in god. Mainly your god. You will never understand that people have thoughts. These thoughts are self evident in proving you have unalienable rights. Your thoughts are your thoughts. People may share your thoughts, but they are not you. You do not have to share someone elses thought. There is nothing forcing you to believe what someone else believes. Now if you need a creator (and yeah I didn't capitolize, really get the OCD under control. Things like that happen) to believe that you have thoughts well then more power to you, but if you can not comprehend how someone who doesn't believe in god is capable of free thought, well I don't know what to tell you.

Your question is a complete contradiction. That fact that you cannot see that really is not my problem.

Have fun trying to figuring it out. I suggest giving it up.
Your childish insults notwithstanding, this thread was never about free or limited thought, so your point is and continues to be off-point. Further, how is thought automatically equated with unalienable rights? I can sit in jail and think, so how does that equate to some type of right?

In any event, we have a system that was defined in this country by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence. You either subscribe to that system or you don't. If you don't, then I'd like to know what system you subscribe to and how you rationalize your decision.

So, if you don't believe in a Creator, how do you obtain your rights, if any, and how are those rights defined? This is a very simple question. It is not really necessary to bring obtuse theories into the discussion.

[idiom]

These thoughts are self evident in proving you have unalienable rights.

1# That doesn't follow.
2# I don't know that you have thoughts.
3# Why is thought so special?

[Bman]

Your childish insults notwithstanding, this thread was never about free or limited thought, so your point is and continues to be off-point. But please feel free to think however you wish, its up to you.

However, we have a system that was defined in this country by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence. You either subscribe to that system or you don't. If you don't, then I'd like to know what system you subscribe to and how you rationalize your decision.

So, if you don't believe in a Creator, how do you obtain your rights, if any, and how are those rights defined? This is a very simple question.

Sorry anything came across as an insult. I was just trying to help you understand that you just don't understand the answer.


Your question was how can an aethist believe in unalienable rights, if he does not believe in a creator.

first lets define Unalienable Rights - "The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of individual human rights that by their nature cannot be taken ..."

So now we have to understand what exactly can not be taken from you. Well in all honesty there is only one thing in the world that cannot be taken from you. And that is what you decide to believe as I answered.


That is what unalienable rights are. They are your ability to choose what you believe.

Now simpy put. If you choose what you believe. You have unalienable rights.
Why you would need a god to tell you that is beyond me. Maybe you should clarify your question, because in all honesty it makes no sense.

I choose what I believe = therefore I have unalienable rights because no one else can choose what I believe.

THAT is what an atheists basic rule set looks like. Now they have to educate themselves on matters to make a logical choice on what the best action would be. And as you should be able to tell from this forum is that there are a lot of us who do not believe in god, yet believe that peace is the best solution, personal responsibility is the best solution, Not having someone tell you what you can and cannot do is the best solution (except in cases were you directly cause physical harm to another individual). And probably a few other things. All without god telling us.

I'm sorry you felt insulted but the very nature of your question was insulting.

[Bman]

1# That doesn't follow.
2# I don't know that you have thoughts

How would purpose to test the theory.Is my response not validation enough to you? If not were are you going to set the bar.



3# Why is thought so special?

Well for starters. It is what makes me, me. And you, you. Otherwise we'd have no reason to even being discussing such an item. Or any for that fact. What would be the point if we were all thinking the same thing.

[idiom]

Okay. I will start at relevant to this thread and regress through political, practical, philospical and then terminating at metaphysical, to cover that problems you have shoved your stick in.


If you choose what you believe. You have unalienable rights.

If you can always choose what you believe, then you have inalienable rights. The two italicised words are the most important.

- The right to choose what you believe. - This can be taken away at the drop of a hat with a Psychological Certification. Sudden;y believing in certain things makes you 'ill' and you will be treated either until you really believe differently or your brain dies.

- Your ability to choose what you believe, at face value. So you deny the existence of brainwashing, indoctrination, mental trauma, Amnesia, Hallucinations etc.

- Your Ability to choose at a rational level - What is intruding on your freedom to choose? Shouldn't all rational beings given the same set of facts freely reach the same conclusion? Yet they don't? Apparently some people make irrational choices. By definiton there is no reasoning in that process. If you irrationally choose to believe something, do you over-rule a right to rationally choose something?

- Your Ability to choose otherwise - You are presuming the existence of freewill. Very few philosophers, especially atheists, believe in hard free will. Physics more or less says your thoughts and choices are made long before you are even born. Alternatively, your decisions are completely random (if they occur at a quantum level). How is a random will a free one?


If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.

- I think therefore I am - This statement has been pulled apart many many times -


The philosopher must say to himself, “When I dismantle the process which is expressed in the sentence ‘I think,’ I come upon a series of daring assertions whose grounding is difficult, perhaps impossible—for example, that I am the one who thinks, that there must be some general something that thinks, that thinking is an action and effect of a being which is to be thought of as a cause, that there is an ‘I’, and finally that it is already established what we mean by thinking—that I know what thinking is. For if I had not yet decided these questions in myself, how could I assess that what just happened might not perhaps be ‘willing’ or ‘feeling’?” In short, this “I think” presupposes that I compare my immediate condition with other conditions which I know in myself in order to establish what it is. Because of this referring back to other forms of “knowing,” it certainly does not have any immediate “certainty” for me. Thus, instead of that “immediate certainty,” which the people may believe in the case under discussion, the philosopher encounters a series of metaphysical questions, really essential problems of intellectual knowledge, as follows: “Where do I acquire the idea of thinking? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an ‘I,’ and indeed of an ‘I’ as a cause, finally even of an ‘I’ as the cause of thinking?” Anyone who dares to answer those metaphysical questions right away with an appeal to some kind of intuitive cognition, as does the man who says “I think and know that at least this is true, real, and certain”—such a person nowadays will be met by a philosopher with a smile and two question marks. “My dear sir,” the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, “it is unlikely that you are not mistaken but why such absolute truth?”—


- Thought being so special -
Well for starters. It is what makes me, me. And you, you. Otherwise we'd have no reason to even being discussing such an item. Or any for that fact. What would be the point if we were all thinking the same thing.

If you think about it, it is more likely that memory makes you who you are.

- Other people have thoughts to - The ground from which your are starting, is that you have thoughts. It can be shown that it follows that those thoughts are private and that further The experience of a given person is necessarily private to that person. The idea that you can't prove that any other person has thoughts in the same ways as you do hasn't been seriously challenged since ~400 B.C.


If any of the above points has any merit at all, then the idea of a natural right to think goes Smoosh. The Legal right to think is even inalienable.

[Bman]

Okay. I will start at relevant to this thread and regress through political, practical, philospical and then terminating at metaphysical, to cover that problems you have shoved your stick in.



If you can always choose what you believe, then you have inalienable rights. The two italicised words are the most important.

etc...


Ok. Then lets get to the nuts and bolts of it.

Philosophically, what makes the idea of a creator giving you unalienable rights, more legitamite than you having unalienable rights because you choose your belief.

And exactly what about brainwashing, indoctrination, mental trauma, Amnesia, Hallucinations etc. is a legitimate argument. How did someone take your ability to choose? Some of these are natural. No one took them from you. You may have lost them. But they were not taken by someone. Some are by education or torture or such devices. Now these are some what arguable, but can you give me actual proof that a person had their beliefs changed by force, or did they change their minds to end the force. One is much different than the other. Then there is mental trauma. This is the most interesting. But wouldn't mental trama be caused by the death or destruction of part of your brain? This would not be changing someones mind. This would be killing someones mind.

[idiom]

Ok. Then lets get to the nuts and bolts of it.

Philosophically, what makes the idea of a creator giving you unalienable rights, more legitamite than you having unalienable rights because you choose your belief.

And exactly what about brainwashing, indoctrination, mental trauma, Amnesia, Hallucinations etc. is a legitimate argument. How did someone take your ability to choose? Some of these are natural. No one took them from you. You may have lost them. But they were not taken by someone. Some are by education or torture or such devices. Now these are some what arguable, but can you give me actual proof that a person had their beliefs changed by force, or did they change their minds to end the force. One is much different than the other. Then there is mental trauma. This is the most interesting. But wouldn't mental trama be caused by the death or destruction of part of your brain? This would not be changing someones mind. This would be killing someones mind.

I don't think anyone has any natural rights, Creator or not. A Creator may have bestowed other inalieanable rights. In abrahamic traditions every gets a right to a hearing on the day of Judgement. Or something.

Also the existence Creator can sidestep a whole lot of the fuzzier philosophical issues. You can assume rationality exists. You can assume Free Will exists. You can assume that when your mind is intact, you can in fact make choices. Without a Creator (and even with to a degree) these are not nearly as strong.



Your ability to choose doesn't have to be taken away by someone, it just has to go away. Then it is alienated. A Natural Unalienable right is not alienable. Also the way you have defined your right, alienable tends to approximate infringing. If infringing and alienation are the same thing then your right is a truism.

Also, you are focusing on your ability to choose rather than your right to choose. Do you think children should be presented with all possible belief systems? If you restrict a childs access to knowledge, so that say, they never hear about Santa Clause, then how can they choose to believe in Santa?

The key ideas Orwell elucidated were not infact about forcing someone to change their mind, but restricting the options they had to choose from.

Do all the people who think the war on terror mystically began out of the blue on 9/11 freely choosing that belief?

Also Hypnosis is up for discussion I guess.

If force is magically disqualified. What happens when you change your belief system under extended duress, but then fail to revert when the duress ends?

Anyways. You can trust me. I Report, You decide.

[Bman]

I don't think anyone has any natural rights, Creator or not. A Creator may have bestowed other inalieanable rights. In abrahamic traditions every gets a right to a hearing on the day of Judgement. Or something.

Also the existence Creator can sidestep a whole lot of the fuzzier philosophical issues. You can assume rationality exists. You can assume Free Will exists. You can assume that when your mind is intact, you can in fact make choices. Without a Creator (and even with to a degree) these are not nearly as strong.



Your ability to choose doesn't have to be taken away by someone, it just has to go away. Then it is alienated. A Natural Unalienable right is not alienable. Also the way you have defined your right, alienable tends to approximate infringing. If infringing and alienation are the same thing then your right is a truism.

Also, you are focusing on your ability to choose rather than your right to choose. Do you think children should be presented with all possible belief systems? If you restrict a childs access to knowledge, so that say, they never hear about Santa Clause, then how can they choose to believe in Santa?

The key ideas Orwell elucidated were not infact about forcing someone to change their mind, but restricting the options they had to choose from.

Do all the people who think the war on terror mystically began out of the blue on 9/11 freely choosing that belief?

Also Hypnosis is up for discussion I guess.

If force is magically disqualified. What happens when you change your belief system under extended duress, but then fail to revert when the duress ends?

Anyways. You can trust me. I Report, You decide.

So long as you can admit that if my philosophy does not hold water, neither does that of a person who believes in a creator.

[Theocrat]

That was some major platitudeosis going on.

I might tend to agree with idiom. Maybe physical laws and rights come from deep inside Zeus's head.( Maybe gravity doesn't exist because it isn't matter right?)
You do realize that there are people, who thinks it's perfectly reasonable to steal money from a poor defenseless person right? Despite your god saying otherwise(in magic book none the less). One can only conclude that your god doesn't exist i guess, since obviously reason is in the eye of the beholder.
I suggest you read some KANT.



I'm glad that you agree that christian deaths are meaningless when given for a good cause because they are going to live forever anyway though.[Emphasis mine]

When did I agree to that in my post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1985277#post1985277)?

[diggronpaul]

So long as you can admit that if my philosophy does not hold water, neither does that of a person who believes in a creator.
The American system is intimately based upon the latter philosophy, so is it your
contention that the American Declaration of Independence "does not hold water"
and therefore our entire system of unalienable rights also do "not hold water?"

Let's get to the heart of the matter here! Do you or do you not subscribe to the
American system?

[Dary]

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?

Are you saying that I must believe in god before (and in order) to object to being killed?

If I don’t believe then I have no basis to object?

[Bman]

The American system is intimately based upon the latter philosophy, so is it your
contention that the American Declaration of Independence "does not hold water"
and therefore our entire system of unalienable rights also do "not hold water?"

Let's get to the heart of the matter here! Do you or do you not subscribe to the
American system?

You haven't been paying attention.

[phill4paul]

I re-iterate:

I see no where in the Preamble to the Constitution unequivicable belief in a Christian God.

Within our Declaration of Independence there is this "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."

They did not acknowledge the Christian God as their "Creator".

They did not acknowledge ANY "god" as the Creator. Were the founding fathers so ignorant to not have examined many faiths? It is my belief that they meant this phrase to be ambiguous. That no one religion would guide the actions of men. That men through reason would make their own choice of worship still knowing that they have unalienable rights.

Otherwise it would have been written:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed through acceptance of the Lord God and through faith in his only Son, Jesus of Nazarth, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[ourlongroad]

Are you saying that I must believe in god before (and in order) to object to being killed?

If I don’t believe then I have no basis to object?
This is an example of the Delphi Technique of throwing out example after example in order to thwart ones logic, and I'm not going to play ball. We have a system in place that has created more freedoms than the history of mankind, do you subscribe to that system or not?


You haven't been paying attention.
What I see here is a discussion that refuses to address the question I asked... instead it's a discussion that attempts to deal with the question-at-hand by discussion theories that appear to have relevance but do not.
I asked a very specific question for a reason, and I'll I see is dancing in response.

You cannot reconcile these theories with the basic fundamental American system of liberties. It's really that simple, no matter how much window dressing you put on it.

This system was purposely designed to be exceedingly simple, so that techniques of obfuscation would not thwart its universal understanding. Throw the ball..... hit the ball..... catch the ball. It's really that simple.

But we've witnessed philosopher, political agents and all manner-of-others attempt to add enormous complexity to the concept in order to thwart its power. But it won't work with those who still have a grasp of the fundamentals.

[Bman]

This is an example of the Delphi Technique of throwing out example after example in order to thwart ones logic, and I'm not going to play ball. We have a system in place that has created more freedoms than the history of mankind, do you subscribe to that system or not?


What I see here is a discussion that refuses to address the question I asked... instead it's a discussion that attempts to deal with the question-at-hand by discussion theories that appear to have relevance but do not.
I asked a very specific question for a reason, and I'll I see is dancing in response.

You cannot reconcile these theories with the basic fundamental American system of liberties. It's really that simple, no matter how much window dressing you put on it.

This system was purposely designed to be exceedingly simple, so that techniques of obfuscation would not thwart its universal understanding. Throw the ball..... hit the ball..... catch the ball. It's really that simple.

But we've witnessed philosopher, political agents and all manner-of-others attempt to add enormous complexity to the concept in order to thwart its power. But it won't work with those who still have a grasp of the fundamentals.

You are implying that something is right and something else is wrong.

You've been debunked. The question is no good.

[ourlongroad]

I re-iterate:

I see no where in the Preamble to the Constitution unequivicable belief in a Christian God.

Within our Declaration of Independence there is this "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."

They did not acknowledge the Christian God as their "Creator".
First, I referred specifically to the Declaration of Independence in my initial question, not the US Constitution

Secondly, I specifically used the word Creator in my initial post.

To refresh your memory, the OP is quoted below:

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a Creator?

Before you answer, let me refer you to this key passage in the American Declaration of Independence....



Please, serious answers only, as I think this is an important question that needs to be fleshed-out here given some of the recent discussions I've observed. Thank you.

[Dary]

This is an example of the Delphi Technique of throwing out example after example in order to thwart ones logic.

If it were not for you defining what the Delphi Technique is, I would have had to Google it.

I was really just asking a question.

I didn't mean to summon up the Delphi Technique. Sorry. I was just trying to get a better understanding of what it is exactly you're asking.

If what you're asking is... how can I object to being killed if I don't believe in god (which is what your question seems to me to boil down to), then my answer would be... well... because I don't want to be killed.

You may not see that as an inalienable right, but it seems pretty inalienable to me.

If I have to rely on your belief in god in order to be at ease knowing that I'll be free to live, well that's not good enough for me. What if one day you were to change your mind and find it no longer expedient to believe in god?

I'd be SOL.

So to answer your question "how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?" I'll be absolutely honest with you. The answer is, I don't know.

I'm just a simple guy. I'm not versed in all the intricacies of debate and all.

Maybe I don't accept the concept of unalienable rights in the context of a creator. I don't know. But what I do know is you don't have to believe in god in order to hold the golden rule in high regard (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).

Does that answer your question?

[ourlongroad]

You are implying that something is right and something else is wrong.

You've been debunked. The question is no good.
I asked a very simple question, and you continue to throw everything but the kitchen sink at it except an answer.

[ourlongroad]

So to answer your question "how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?" I'll be absolutely honest with you. The answer is, I don't know.

I'm just a simple guy. I'm not versed in all the intricacies of debate and all.

Maybe I don't accept the concept of unalienable rights in the context of a creator. I don't know. But what I do know is you don't have to believe in god in order to hold the golden rule in high regard (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).

Does that answer your question?
Hip hip hooray for total openness and honesty. This is great progress. Thank you so very much.

Here's someone articulating the paradox in simple straightforward language, for he "doesn't know" how one can accept the concept of unalienable rights while disputing the concept of a Creator. What a beautiful observation!

One doesn't have to be versed in debate, logic, fancy language or anything else to understand and explain this incredibly simply concept. The Founding Fathers were brilliant beyond belief. They knew this concept would be attacked by every snake-oil philosopher the elite could hire, so they kept it utterly simple, so that no one would fail to understand it. It's power is in its simplicity and in its inability to be be manipulated.

Let's be clear here, we're not discussing religion and we're not debating one God against anothers, we're simply discussing the concept of how unalienable rights flow to sovereign individuals under our Founders framework, which is our country's framework.

It is the crux of all of our liberties, and of the American system of independence. To mess with this most basic fundamental concept is to move into unchartered waters where very well financed shysters can manipulate words, theories and logic and push a free individual into servitude before they know it. Our power is in this most basic and beautiful simplicity.

I don't care what religion you do or don't practice, but as long as you subscribe to the belief structure that your rights come from a Creator, your rights may be infringed upon by other men temporarily, but they can never ever be taken away from you because other men simply do not possess the power to do so.

[phill4paul]

First, I referred specifically to the Declaration of Independence in my initial question, not the US Constitution

Secondly, I specifically used the word Creator in my initial post.

To refresh your memory, the OP is quoted below:

My posts were in reply to others posts about the Christian viewpoint that they held dominition in the discussion of the founding documents.

In respect to your question....

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

My belief: The power that they are referring to physics, that which is known, and belief, that which is universally believed. The spark within each of us.

Each are given equal accord.

So in answer I would say that yes they believed in a Creator.

[Dary]

Hip hip hooray for total openness and honesty. This is great progress. Thank you so very much.

You're welcome.

Will you now answer my question?

[nbhadja]

I don't care what religion you do or don't practice, but as long as you subscribe to the belief structure that your rights come from a Creator, your rights may be infringed upon by other men temporarily, but they can never ever be taken away from you because other men simply do not possess the power to do so.

Using your logic- If it turns out a creator does not exist, you have no rights.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I don't care what religion you do or don't practice, but as long as you subscribe to the belief structure that your rights come from a Creator, your rights may be infringed upon by other men temporarily, but they can never ever be taken away from you because other men simply do not possess the power to do so.

As long as you subscribe to the belief structure that your rights come from your nature as a rational human being who wishes to live free, your rights may be infringed upon by other men temporarily, but they can never ever be taken away from you because other men simply do not possess the power to do so.

See what I did there? That works just as well.

Besides, it doesn't matter if rights come from God or nature or whether they exist because we want them to exist. Rights that are denied or infringed upon are the same as rights that don't exist.

[Bman]

I asked a very simple question, and you continue to throw everything but the kitchen sink at it except an answer.

My first response was the answer. You refuse to accept it or understand it. I don't know what else you want me to say.

[ourlongroad]

Are you saying that I must believe in god before (and in order) to object to being killed?

If I don’t believe then I have no basis to object?
My initial reaction is that you can certainly object to being killed, but that is not the same as being born with a Creator-given right to life.

In your scenario, the perpetrator may or not be infringing on your rights (depending on unmentioned details), in our Founding Fathers scenario the perpetrator is most certainly infringing on your Creator-given rights and therefore can be punished for this infringement.

In our Founding Fathers system, your right to life can never ever be changed, no matter what. You yourself, do not even have the power to alter these Creator-given rights.

[ourlongroad]

As long as you subscribe to the belief structure that your rights come from your nature as a rational human being who wishes to live free, your rights may be infringed upon by other men temporarily, but they can never ever be taken away from you because other men simply do not possess the power to do so.

See what I did there? That works just as well.

Besides, it doesn't matter if rights come from God or nature or whether they exist because we want them to exist. Rights that are denied or infringed upon are the same as rights that don't exist.
I don't think you fully comprehend the power of the elite to alter the profanes belief systems and environment. For example, Nature is being attacked and fictitiously altered as we speak.... can you say Climate Change? Humans are being attacked and biologically and psychologically altered as well, hence, it does matter very much that the origin of our rights were not left in our own human hands.

The Founders choose a source for these rights that they felt would be extremely difficult to attack and alter. It's simplicity and its inability to prove and disprove is the framework's strength.

[idiom]

So long as you can admit that if my philosophy does not hold water, neither does that of a person who believes in a creator.

Again I would disagree. The sources of the natural rights is different. The existence of a creator doesn't automatically cause rights to begin to exist. The rights from a Creator argument can only hold water if you can show where a given creator defined inalieanable rights.

Even then those are things that the a creator has simply restricted itself from.

American Rights are restrictions on the government. Not entitlements. (Well some of them are.)

You are Entitled to a phone call. You are not entitled to freedom of speech or to live. The Government may not restrict your Freedom of Speech, but it doesn't have to force others to allow you to speak. The Government is allowed to end your life.

People use rights as if somehow being born entitled them to things. The fact of your existence entitles you to nothing. The Universe does not care, and to a large degree God(s) does not care.

It is self-evident that men do not accept your claim to rights.

All the rights we have are derived from legal and social frameworks. The American system is not an obvious or naturally occuring phenomena. It is a precious and transient opportunity representing a high water mark in humans being humane.

If rights are to exist, we must choose to define them, choose to establish them, choose to respect them and choose to defend them.

Belief in a Creator may give us cues as to what those rights should be, but they are non-obvious.

[Bman]

Again I would disagree. The sources of the natural rights is different. The existence of a creator doesn't automatically cause rights to begin to exist. The rights from a Creator argument can only hold water if you can show where a given creator defined inalieanable rights.

Even then those are things that the a creator has simply restricted itself from.

American Rights are restrictions on the government. Not entitlements. (Well some of them are.)

You are Entitled to a phone call. You are not entitled to freedom of speech or to live. The Government may not restrict your Freedom of Speech, but it doesn't have to force others to allow you to speak. The Government is allowed to end your life.

People use rights as if somehow being born entitled them to things. The fact of your existence entitles you to nothing. The Universe does not care, and to a large degree God(s) does not care.

It is self-evident that men do not accept your claim to rights.

All the rights we have are derived from legal and social frameworks. The American system is not an obvious or naturally occuring phenomena. It is a precious and transient opportunity representing a high water mark in humans being humane.

If rights are to exist, we must choose to define them, choose to establish them, choose to respect them and choose to defend them.

Belief in a Creator may give us cues as to what those rights should be, but they are non-obvious.


Now here is where I disagree. Believeing in a creator is a step worse. Because if you believe in a creator now you have to believe that you indeed had a non-physical entity show you exactly how things should be. You've actually added a step to the whole equation, adding a variable always increases probability of a mistake. And the beauty of this mistake is that you do not take personal responsibility.

I'd like to hear you explain how belief in a creator is sane on the level that he would give you unalienable rights. Because to me that must mean you believe and can prove other invisible entities besides ones from the bibles.

Saying we do have unalienable rights...

We more likely have unalienable rights because we choose to say so, and do something about it. Rather than have an invisible entity some how show them to us. How you think the latter is more logical is utterly ridiculous to me, because now we have to imagine something we know nothing about, and try to speak on it's behalf. Completely irrational. Remeber, just because something is accepted does not make it rational.

At least it is ration to believe I made a choice that no one else could.

[idiom]

We more likely have unalienable rights because we choose to say so, and do something about it.

That is a legal right, not a natural right.


I'd like to hear you explain how belief in a creator is sane on the level that he would give you unalienable rights. Because to me that must mean you believe and can prove other invisible entities besides ones from the bibles.

If you believe in one invisible thing, belief in others is easy. And why do you keep refering to the Bible???


How you think the latter is more logical is utterly ridiculous to me, because now we have to imagine something we know nothing about, and try to speak on it's behalf.

Again you are bringing a lot of assumptions into the discussion that you have not investigated. If the Earth and the species on it were merely created by aliens it would alter the origin of rights vs spontaneous existence.

Adding an external force as a concrete assumption by-passes a majority of the sollipsitic problems your approach creates.


You've actually added a step to the whole equation, adding a variable always increases probability of a mistake.

And spending time analysing it reduces the probability of a mistake. I am arguing for the conclusion upheld by thousands of years of research whereas you're arguing against it.

If the variable added is the one that alters the conclusion then it is a critical variable andsolutions not involving it will easily come to a different conclusion.

Look at it this way, Gravity could be an emergent property of energy, or it could be a physical law set down by something external to the Universe. If it is a physical law maintianed by an external force, then it does not follow that it must also be an emergent property of energy and vice versa.


Remember, just because something is accepted does not make it rational.

Like thought. Freewill and the idea that we think is accepted. It doesn't make it rational or prove that rationality is possible.


Because to me that must mean you believe and can prove other invisible entities besides ones from the bibles.

The general path inferred is that one entity can observe another entity and pass information about it back to you without you ever seeing it. This is how we observe blackholes and gravity and the wind. "I have seen the effects of the wind, but I have never seen the wind".

However, if we assume that a Creator is maintaining Rights somehow, then really even those are just legal rights, although they are universal enought to function as natural rights.

So Natural rights do not necessarily follow from the existence (previous or current) of a Creator, only from some possible Creators. To really justify a belief in natural rights endowed by a creator you need something like this:


They rounded the foot of the Quentulus Quazgar Mountains, and
there was the Message written in blazing letters along the crest
of the Mountain. There was a little observation vantage point
with a rail built along the top of a large rock facing it, from
which you could get a good view. It had a little pay-telescope
for looking at the letters in detail, but no one would ever use
it because the letters burned with the divine brilliance of the
heavens and would, if seen through a telescope, have severely
damaged the retina and optic nerve.



They gazed at God's Final Message in wonderment, and were slowly
and ineffably filled with a great sense of peace, and of final
and complete understanding.

Fenchurch sighed. "Yes," she said, "that was it."


The Founders considered it that obvious. But they lived ages ago.

[Dary]

In your scenario, the perpetrator may or not be infringing on your rights...

So you’re saying that it’s possible for a perpetrator to infringe on my rights regardless of there being a creator?

[MikeStanart]

Well, it depends on your definition of what a theocracy is. If your definition supposes that a church body has the ultimate authority over what the State does, then your definition of a theocracy is false. That would be an "ecclesiocracy," which, of course, is wrong.

However, if we take "theocracy" to mean the rule of God over all things (including individuals, families, churches, and civil government) and the only legitimate Granter of rights, Giver of life, liberty, and property, then we're on the right track of what a theocracy truly is. Our Founders unequivocally believed this to be the case about God (as written in our Preambles, declarations, and other political writings), and therefore, in that sense, they were theocrats.

Our system of government presupposes a theocracy, where there is a separation of powers between the various branches of civil government to keep one person from taking the place of God in ruling over every affair of mankind. God rules, not man, which is why we also were never established to be a democracy.

Yes, I agree that there can be "atheists" in foxholes sometimes, but even still, that proves nothing, to me. Just as "atheists" can put their own lives on the line for a good cause, they also use reason and science. The point is "atheists" have no way to justify why they do or use those things, given the assumptions of their worldview. Philosophically speaking, "atheists" have to borrow from a theistic assumption about rights, honor, or reason in order to explain why we should use these things. Otherwise, giving one's life for a good cause is meaningless in a world of just matter and molecules in motion, and that is what "atheism" teaches.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/2001-1_53-7673.html

[M House]

Okay last time.... what's so hard about just seeing another person as someone like you? Scary, huh? You're so not special. You're maybe unique but definitely not intrinsically more special or better than anyone else. Maybe you're more useful than a retard or sociopath, but probably not if you fail at this... Thus ask yourself a question: What you really deserve? You might want to adjust this too cuz that's gonna be what the other person deserves as well, simple? Make it anymore complicated than this and God, philosophy, and atheism will fail you every-time.

[idiom]

Okay last time.... what's so hard about just seeing another person as someone like you? Scary, huh? You're so not special. You're maybe unique but definitely not intrinsically more special or better than anyone else.

I am to me.

[powerofreason]

One does not need to have faith in things that may or not exist in order to hold the belief that we are all free.

Humans must be free because of our nature, there are certain rules that need to be respected in order for us all to be able to survive and prosper. Rights tell us when it is morally acceptable to use violence against others. Allow me to give an example, and then compare that to what you believe.

Example: People have a right to own their justly acquired property, either through homesteading previously unowned property or through trade or gift.

My explanation for this right: Without property rights, there is chaos. People cannot possibly prosper without the ability to own and enjoy and improve upon their own property. History proves this. Property rights enable practically all human progress.

Your explanation for this right: Cuz God said so!

[powerofreason]

So, its totally fine for you to believe that for yourself, but you can't expect to be able to convince other people that are skeptical of libertarianism with that kind of logic.

[Theocrat]

Now here is where I disagree. Believeing in a creator is a step worse. Because if you believe in a creator now you have to believe that you indeed had a non-physical entity show you exactly how things should be. You've actually added a step to the whole equation, adding a variable always increases probability of a mistake. And the beauty of this mistake is that you do not take personal responsibility.

As I alluded to in an earlier post, how can you, being an materialist, believe in an invisible entity such as rights when your worldview rejects any non-physical entities in the first place? It doesn't makes sense for you to reject God because He's non-physical, but then turn around and believe in a non-physical concept as rights, and worse, unalienable rights. Are rights tangible? Can they be measured in a laboratory? If not, then how can you appeal to rights at all? According to your materialist assumptions, rights can't exist, just as God cannot exist, because like God, rights are non-physical.


We more likely have unalienable rights because we choose to say so, and do something about it. Rather than have an invisible entity some how show them to us. How you think the latter is more logical is utterly ridiculous to me, because now we have to imagine something we know nothing about, and try to speak on it's behalf. Completely irrational. Remeber, just because something is accepted does not make it rational.

At least it is ration to believe I made a choice that no one else could.

Who is "we"? Does "we" include murderers, rapists, and thieves? Also, if we choose to say we have something called "rights," and that becomes accepted amongst a group of people, then how does it make the notion of rights rational (as you've stated, "Just because something is accepted does not make it rational")?

If the majority of a people decide what rights are, as you're suggesting, then rights can no longer be unalienable. They only become contingent upon what the majority of people agree to or choose. If someone inside the group decides to have more rights than what the rest of the group agrees to, then how does his increase in rights become unalienable when the group doesn't agree with him?

[powerofreason]

Chapter 2 of The Market For Liberty also explains the concept of natural rights. For some reason, this pdf that I found blanks out the words "market" and"liberty."

You can find it here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9650860/The-Market-for-Liberty-by-Morris-and-Linda-Tannehill), or at book.freekeene.com in various different forms (fully intact).

Although I doubt any christians here will read it.

[ourlongroad]

So you’re saying that it’s possible for a perpetrator to infringe on my rights regardless of there being a creator?
No.

The perpetrator will be infringing on your rights if your right are unalienable, and the perpetrator will not be infringing on your rights if they are not unalienable. You did not mention the construct in your example, you merely cited that you objected to having your life taken.

This is the Delphi Technique again...where someone throws examples at a construct until they find a small discontinuity, then these leverage this in an effort to de-construct the entire construct.

We have a clear construct in this country that our rights are based upon. One either buys-into that construct or they do not. If they don't, then I'd like to know what construct they wish to change it to, why we should change this construct, and how you wish to implement this change.

[Theocrat]

Chapter 2 of The Market For Liberty also explains the concept of natural rights. For some reason, this pdf that I found blanks out the words "market" and"liberty."

You can find it here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9650860/The-Market-for-Liberty-by-Morris-and-Linda-Tannehill), or at book.freekeene.com in various different forms (fully intact).

Although I doubt any christians here will read it.

I don't want to know what Morris and Linda Tannehill think about rights because I'm not addressing them. I want to know what those "atheistic"/materialistic members in this thread think about rights and how they can justify rights when they reject non-physical entities at the outset. Posting a link to a book on natural rights is similar to a Christian who would post a link to the entire Bible to explain how rights can exist, which most "atheists" would reject in the first place.

[powerofreason]

I don't want to know what Morris and Linda Tannehill think about rights because I'm not addressing them. I want to know what those "atheistic"/materialistic members in this thread think about rights and how they can justify rights when they reject non-physical entities at the outset. Posting a link to a book on natural rights is similar to a Christian who would post a link to the entire Bible to explain how rights can exist, which most "atheists" would reject in the first place.

All I did was recommend that people like the OP who believe that God is the only possible explanation for our rights read chapter 2 of the book I linked. Its several pages long, not the length of the bible. I wasn't addressing you individually. Personally, I am not an atheist. I am simply non religious. I live my life according to the non agression axiom. I have seen zero proof in my life that there exists a god. Thats not to say their is not some higher power in the universe, I think that is certainly a possibility. Anythings possible, really. Parallel universes with different laws of physics sounds just as outlandish yet they may exist too.

[Theocrat]

All I did was recommend that people like the OP who believe that God is the only possible explanation for our rights read chapter 2 of the book I linked. Its several pages long, not the length of the bible. I wasn't addressing you individually. Personally, I am not an atheist. I am simply non religious. I live my life according to the non agression axiom. I have seen zero proof in my life that there exists a god. Thats not to say their is not some higher power in the universe, I think that is certainly a possibility. Anythings possible, really. Parallel universes with different laws of physics sounds just as outlandish yet they may exist too.

If you don't believe in God, then you can't believe there are rights. Otherwise, you're acting like a Christian.

[powerofreason]

If you don't believe in God, then you can't believe there are rights. Otherwise, you're acting like a Christian.

Hah! You have some reading to do, my friend.

[Bman]

If you don't believe in God, then you can't believe there are rights. Otherwise, you're acting like a Christian.

Can you explain that. It doesn't make much sense from my point of view.

[Theocrat]

Can you explain that. It doesn't make much sense from my point of view.

Read my posts in this thread, and you'll understand.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights


by Ayn Rand
If one wishes to advocate a free society—that is, capitalism-one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives.”
“Rights” are a moral concept-the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others-the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter—and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.
Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience—on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”
This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Divine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first—”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god—the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens—the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome—the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages—the absolute monarchy of France—the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia—the gas chambers of Nazi Germany—the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.
All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics-and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.
All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.
The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)
To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.
The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.
Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.
The result was the pattern of a civilized society which—for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years—America came close to achieving. A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
This was the essential meaning and intent of America’s political philosophy, implicit in the principle of individual rights. But it was not formulated explicitly, nor fully accepted nor consistently practiced.
America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.
It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin.
A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency—so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated “rights” that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these “printing-press rights” negate authentic rights.
Consider the curious fact that never has there been such a proliferation, all over the world, of two contradictory phenomena: of alleged new “rights” and of slave-labor camps.
The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm.
The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago.”
Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which the platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”
A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?
Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.
Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.
The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.
The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.
The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.
Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.
There is no such thing as “a right to a job”-there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.
Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights)—and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.
Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal-and men have legal protection against him.
Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors-the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions-perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.
Now observe the process by which that protection is being destroyed.
The process consists of ascribing to private citizens the specific violations constitutionally forbidden to the government (which private citizens have no power to commit) and thus freeing the government from all restrictions. The switch is becoming progressively more obvious in the field of free speech. For years, the collectivists have been propagating the notion that a private individual’s refusal to finance an opponent is a violation of the opponent’s right of free speech and an act of “censorship.”
It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.
It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them.
It is “censorship,” they claim, if a TV sponsor objects to some outrage perpetrated on a program he is financing—such as the incident of Alger Hiss being invited to denounce former Vice-President Nixon.
And then there is [Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] Newton N. Minow who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming-and who claims that that is not censorship.
Consider the implications of such a trend.
“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.
But according to such doctrines as the “economic bill of rights,” an individual has no right to dispose of his own material means by the guidance of his own convictions-and must hand over his money indiscriminately to any speakers or propagandists, who have a “right” to his property.
This means that the ability to provide the material tools for the expression of ideas deprives a man of the right to hold any ideas. It means that a publisher has to publish books he considers worthless, false or evil—that a TV sponsor has to finance commentators who choose to affront his convictions-that the owner of a newspaper must turn his editorial pages over to any young hooligan who clamors for the enslavement of the press. It means that one group of men acquires the “right” to unlimited license—while another group is reduced to helpless irresponsibility.
But since it is obviously impossible to provide every claimant with a job, a microphone or a newspaper column, who will determine the “distribution” of “economic rights” and select the recipients, when the owners’ right to choose has been abolished? Well, Mr. Minow has indicated that quite clearly.
And if you make the mistake of thinking that this applies only to big property owners, you had better realize that the theory of “economic rights” includes the “right” of every would-be playwright, every beatnik poet, every noise-composer and every nonobjective artist (who have political pull) to the financial support you did not give them when you did not attend their shows. What else is the meaning of the project to spend your tax money on subsidized art?
And while people are clamoring about “economic rights,” the concept of political rights is vanishing. It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of “the right of free speech” is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression—not to guarantee them the support, advantages and rewards of a popularity they have not gained.
The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It does not demand that private citizens provide a microphone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their throats.
Such is the state of one of today’s most crucial issues: political rights versus “economic rights.” It’s either-or. One destroys the other. But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights.” The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.
Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.
(April 1963)

“Man’s Rights,” from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Copyright (c) 1946, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966 by Ayn Rand. used by permission of Dutton Signet, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

[Theocrat]

Hah! You have some reading to do, my friend.

Can you explain to me why that is the case, dealing with the issue of how rights can be justified outside the existence of God?

[Bman]

Read my posts in this thread, and you'll understand.

I have read your posts. And in all seriousness it make more sense that I have unalienable rights because I say so, rather than a god giving them to me. The reason is that if they are given to me are they actually mine? And what is stopping said power from taking them back? And lastly whose creator are we going to believe. Personally I'll go back to the Eygptian gods if I want to worship something, seeing as all of modern religion was stolen from Eygyptians and Pagans.

I live in defiance of your idea of god.

You live in defiance of reality.

[Theocrat]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights


by Ayn Rand
If one wishes to advocate a free society—that is, capitalism-one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives.”
“Rights” are a moral concept-the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others-the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context-the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter—and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.
Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience—on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”
This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Divine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first—”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god—the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens—the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome—the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages—the absolute monarchy of France—the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia—the gas chambers of Nazi Germany—the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.
All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics-and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.
All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.
The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)
To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.
The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.
Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.
The result was the pattern of a civilized society which—for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years—America came close to achieving. A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.
This was the essential meaning and intent of America’s political philosophy, implicit in the principle of individual rights. But it was not formulated explicitly, nor fully accepted nor consistently practiced.
America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.
It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin.
A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency—so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated “rights” that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these “printing-press rights” negate authentic rights.
Consider the curious fact that never has there been such a proliferation, all over the world, of two contradictory phenomena: of alleged new “rights” and of slave-labor camps.
The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm.
The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago.”
Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which the platform offers:
“1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
“2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
“3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
“4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
“5. The right of every family to a decent home.
“6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
“7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
“8. The right to a good education.”
A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?
Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?
If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.
Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”
A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.
Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.
The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.
The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.
The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.
Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.
There is no such thing as “a right to a job”-there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.
Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights)—and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.
Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal-and men have legal protection against him.
Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors-the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions-perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.
Now observe the process by which that protection is being destroyed.
The process consists of ascribing to private citizens the specific violations constitutionally forbidden to the government (which private citizens have no power to commit) and thus freeing the government from all restrictions. The switch is becoming progressively more obvious in the field of free speech. For years, the collectivists have been propagating the notion that a private individual’s refusal to finance an opponent is a violation of the opponent’s right of free speech and an act of “censorship.”
It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.
It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them.
It is “censorship,” they claim, if a TV sponsor objects to some outrage perpetrated on a program he is financing—such as the incident of Alger Hiss being invited to denounce former Vice-President Nixon.
And then there is [Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] Newton N. Minow who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming-and who claims that that is not censorship.
Consider the implications of such a trend.
“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.
But according to such doctrines as the “economic bill of rights,” an individual has no right to dispose of his own material means by the guidance of his own convictions-and must hand over his money indiscriminately to any speakers or propagandists, who have a “right” to his property.
This means that the ability to provide the material tools for the expression of ideas deprives a man of the right to hold any ideas. It means that a publisher has to publish books he considers worthless, false or evil—that a TV sponsor has to finance commentators who choose to affront his convictions-that the owner of a newspaper must turn his editorial pages over to any young hooligan who clamors for the enslavement of the press. It means that one group of men acquires the “right” to unlimited license—while another group is reduced to helpless irresponsibility.
But since it is obviously impossible to provide every claimant with a job, a microphone or a newspaper column, who will determine the “distribution” of “economic rights” and select the recipients, when the owners’ right to choose has been abolished? Well, Mr. Minow has indicated that quite clearly.
And if you make the mistake of thinking that this applies only to big property owners, you had better realize that the theory of “economic rights” includes the “right” of every would-be playwright, every beatnik poet, every noise-composer and every nonobjective artist (who have political pull) to the financial support you did not give them when you did not attend their shows. What else is the meaning of the project to spend your tax money on subsidized art?
And while people are clamoring about “economic rights,” the concept of political rights is vanishing. It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of “the right of free speech” is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression—not to guarantee them the support, advantages and rewards of a popularity they have not gained.
The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It does not demand that private citizens provide a microphone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their throats.
Such is the state of one of today’s most crucial issues: political rights versus “economic rights.” It’s either-or. One destroys the other. But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights.” The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.
Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.
(April 1963)

“Man’s Rights,” from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Copyright (c) 1946, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966 by Ayn Rand. used by permission of Dutton Signet, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

Once again, I don't want to know what Ayn Rand believes about rights because I'm not addressing her. I want to know how the non-Christians in this thread can make sense of there being a non-physical entity as "rights." If none of you can do more than just simply post links to articles of what other non-Christian philosophers have written about rights to justify your position, then it shows me that you really haven't thought critically about your own philosophical beliefs concerning the nature of rights, especially outside of the existence of God.

[powerofreason]

Can you explain to me why that is the case, dealing with the issue of how rights can be justified outside the existence of God?


One does not need to have faith in things that may or not exist in order to hold the belief that we are all free.

Humans must be free because of our nature, there are certain rules that need to be respected in order for us all to be able to survive and prosper. Rights tell us when it is morally acceptable to use violence against others. Allow me to give an example, and then compare that to what you believe.

Example: People have a right to own their justly acquired property, either through homesteading previously unowned property or through trade or gift.

My explanation for this right: Without property rights, there is chaos. People cannot possibly prosper without the ability to own and enjoy and improve upon their own property. History proves this. Property rights enable practically all human progress.

Your explanation for this right: Cuz God said so!

Maybe you missed that post? Thats about as simple as I can make it for you.

[Theocrat]

I have read your posts. And in all seriousness it make more sense that I have unalienable rights because I say so, rather than a god giving them to me. The reason is that if they are given to me are they actually mine? And what is stopping said power from taking them back? And lastly whose creator are we going to believe. Personally I'll go back to the Eygptian gods if I want to worship something, seeing as all of modern religion was stolen from Eygyptians and Pagans.

I live in defiance of your idea of god.

You live in defiance of reality.

What in my posts do you expressly disagree with? Can you give me a refutation of some points which I specifically spoke about that will clarify your point of view? Thanks in advance. :)

[Bman]

If you don't believe in God, then you can't believe there are rights. Otherwise, you're acting like a Christian.

Here we go for starters. I don't believe in god but I do believe in rights. And I'm not acting Christian. I am acting Human.

[Bman]

What in my posts do you expressly disagree with? Can you give me a refutation of some points which I specifically spoke about that will clarify your point of view? Thanks in advance. :)

Also you are a bit confused. You believe that atheists can only believe in something that is material. Not correct. We can only believe in things that can be tested. Like gravity. I can't see it. It is invisible, yet I can test it and prove that it is there. An idea. I can write it down on paper and have some one else reading it thus confirming that the idea exists not as a figment of my imagination but as an article of identification.

[heavenlyboy34]

Once again, I don't want to know what Ayn Rand believes about rights because I'm not addressing her. I want to know how the non-Christians in this thread can make sense of there being a non-physical entity as "rights." If none of you can do more than just simply post links to articles of what other non-Christian philosophers have written about rights to justify your position, then it shows me that you really haven't thought critically about your own philosophical beliefs concerning the nature of rights, especially outside of the existence of God.

This is a divisive issue thread, and I thought it might be an interesting read for all parties in this thread. It's better fleshed out than most posts on this site. It does not necessarily correlate to my personal opinion. I'm keeping my personal opinion to myself on this issue.

[Kludge]

Being too lazy to rifle through the 50 posts I didn't read, I'll briefly state my (lack of) beliefs on the issue.


I don't believe in rights. I do believe that life (liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) is a privilege we should protect if at all possible, if only because I believe (out of self-interest) in the utility of the Golden Rule. I wouldn't want to be murdered, and thus have no desire to murder others. The same line of thought can be applied to all "God-given" rights Christians claim.

[Theocrat]

One does not need to have faith in things that may or not exist in order to hold the belief that we are all free.

Humans must be free because of our nature, there are certain rules that need to be respected in order for us all to be able to survive and prosper. Rights tell us when it is morally acceptable to use violence against others. Allow me to give an example, and then compare that to what you believe.

Example: People have a right to own their justly acquired property, either through homesteading previously unowned property or through trade or gift.

My explanation for this right: Without property rights, there is chaos. People cannot possibly prosper without the ability to own and enjoy and improve upon their own property. History proves this. Property rights enable practically all human progress.

Your explanation for this right: Cuz God said so!

You're begging some questions here. First, why must freedom be a necessity to existence? Freedom from what? Ourselves? Our culture? Our family? Why "survive and prosper" if after this life, we're all just buffet food for worms, as "atheism" undeniably teaches?

Second, how can rights tell us when it is morally acceptable to do and not do certain things when you haven't proven that rights exist? According to your worldview, non-physical things don't exist. Yet, rights are non-physical in nature, not extending into a prescribed space.

It is not true that without property rights, there will be chaos. There have been and are many societies in history which the people did not own property, and yet there was no chaos. The civil government was able to intimidate the public into not owning property, and the people complied in peace (and ignorance), very similar to our American culture today. If the government thinks it can progress humanity by controlling what is done with property, it will. For instance, Stalin did that in his "atheistic" state when he destroyed churches in his regime and turned them into libraries and museums.

As a Christian, my explanation for rights is more than just because God says so. That is extremely simplistic and ignorant on your part to suggest such a notion. God desires to have a people unto Himself in a loving relationship and in true righteousness. He blesses His people with life, liberty, property, etc. to show His love and goodness, and He expects us to be wise stewards with those blessings because they originate from Him (rights). No human nor human institution can claim rights come from him or them because they are not God but creatures of God.

[diggronpaul]

Interesting thread...here is what I see:


Unwillingness to accept American system of rights and therefore a dismissal of the foundations of our country;
Inability to articulate any other system of rights that protects the individual from manipulation by other men
Reliance on philosophers fronting for elite actors who perpetrate new-age style belief systems that weaken the strength of the individual, as described so eloquently under the American concept of sovereign individual.
Confusion between God, Religion and Creator, as described in the Declaration of Indepence.
In general, lot of noise, lots of wiggling by those who are attempting to fight our Founders system.


While I encourage the open discussion and thought exercise, I'm very discouraged that I see such a reliance on unproven systems of rights.

By the way, someone here referred to Rothbard and his definition of Natural Rights. That stuff is an abomination. Did you know that Rothbard grew up a communist and was funded by an elitist. There is so much deception out there, yet people read this stuff without knowing the motives of those who are really behind it.

[Theocrat]

I have read your posts. And in all seriousness it make more sense that I have unalienable rights because I say so, rather than a god giving them to me. The reason is that if they are given to me are they actually mine? And what is stopping said power from taking them back? And lastly whose creator are we going to believe. Personally I'll go back to the Eygptian gods if I want to worship something, seeing as all of modern religion was stolen from Eygyptians and Pagans.

I live in defiance of your idea of god.

You live in defiance of reality.

If rights exist only because "I say so," then does that imply that mute people or mentally-handicapped people have no rights?
How are you able to claim a notion that there exists rights in the first place?
Does it come from the neurons in your brain? The chemical processes happening inside your cells?
How would you be able to know with certainty that your assertion of rights was the right one if they originate from the biological responses in our bodies? Since we don't all have the same bodies, does that mean we don't all have the same rights?
Where in our founding documents do we read that "We have rights because we say so?"

[powerofreason]

You're begging some questions here. First, why must freedom be a necessity to existence? Freedom from what? Ourselves? Our culture? Our family? Why "survive and prosper" if after this life, we're all just buffet food for worms, as "atheism" undeniably teaches?

Second, how can rights tell us when it is morally acceptable to do and not do certain things when you haven't proven that rights exist? According to your worldview, non-physical things don't exist. Yet, rights are non-physical in nature, not extending into a prescribed space.

It is not true that without property rights, there will be chaos. There have been and are many societies in history which the people did not own property, and yet there was no chaos. The civil government was able to intimidate the public into not owning property, and the people complied in peace (and ignorance), very similar to our American culture today. If the government thinks it can progress humanity by controlling what is done with property, it will. For instance, Stalin did that in his "atheistic" state when he destroyed churches in his regime and turned them into libraries and museums.

As a Christian, my explanation for rights is more than just because God says so. That is extremely simplistic and ignorant on your part to suggest such a notion. God desires to have a people unto Himself in a loving relationship and in true righteousness. He blesses His people with life, liberty, property, etc. to show His love and goodness, and He expects us to be wise stewards with those blessings because they originate from Him (rights). No human nor human institution can claim rights come from him or them because they are not God but creatures of God.

Alright. I will answer your questions and thoughts one by one.


First, why must freedom be a necessity to existence?

Never said that. Slaves can exist, after all.


Freedom from what? Ourselves? Our culture? Our family?

Aggression. Against person, and property.


Why "survive and prosper" if after this life, we're all just buffet food for worms, as "atheism" undeniably teaches?

So we can enjoy our lives and allow our children and grandchildren and so on to enjoy their lives as well. I don't understand how you can be so sure that our lives go on for eternity.



Second, how can rights tell us when it is morally acceptable to do and not do certain things when you haven't proven that rights exist?

Rights are not tangible things, they are simply a guide to know when it is morally acceptable to commit acts of violence. Whats morally acceptable, you ask? Well thats an easy question to answer. Logic and reason tell us that "anti-life" acts are immoral. That is to say, acts that hinder or destroy life in some way. Such as theft, murder, fraud, rape, on and on.



It is not true that without property rights, there will be chaos. There have been and are many societies in history which the people did not own property, and yet there was no chaos. The civil government was able to intimidate the public into not owning property, and the people complied in peace (and ignorance), very similar to our American culture today. If the government thinks it can progress humanity by controlling what is done with property, it will. For instance, Stalin did that in his "atheistic" state when he destroyed churches in his regime and turned them into libraries and museums.

There IS chaos, in my opinion. Economic chaos, not necessarily people running through the streets screaming while everyones house burns down. Central planning always results in chaos compared to the free market. The more widespread the planning, the more chaotic the result.



As a Christian, my explanation for rights is more than just because God says so. That is extremely simplistic and ignorant on your part to suggest such a notion. God desires to have a people unto Himself in a loving relationship and in true righteousness. He blesses His people with life, liberty, property, etc. to show His love and goodness, and He expects us to be wise stewards with those blessings because they originate from Him (rights). No human nor human institution can claim rights come from him or them because they are not God but creatures of God.

Lmao how the hell do you know what god wants? How do you even know he exists? All you can do is guess and hope. Thats not good enough for me.

[powerofreason]

Interesting thread...here is what I see:


Unwillingness to accept American system of rights and therefore a dismissal of the foundations of our country;
Inability to articulate any other system of rights that protects the individual from manipulation by other men
Reliance on philosophers fronting for elite actors who perpetrate new-age style belief systems that weaken the strength of the individual, as described so eloquently under the American concept of sovereign individual.
Confusion between God, Religion and Creator, as described in the Declaration of Indepence.
In general, lot of noise, lots of wiggling by those who are attempting to fight our Founders system.


While I encourage the open discussion and thought exercise, I'm very discouraged that I see such a reliance on unproven systems of rights.

By the way, someone here referred to Rothbard and his definition of Natural Rights. That stuff is an abomination. Did you know that Rothbard grew up a communist and was funded by an elitist. There is so much deception out there, yet people read this stuff without knowing the motives of those who are really behind it.

Rothbard was a great man and contributed FAR more to the liberty movement than you could ever hope to.

[powerofreason]

The Articles of Confederation provided a far better system of government than the Constitution ever could. Either the Constitution is responsible for our current situation or failed to prevent it, as a wise man whose name I can't remember once said. So I don't really give a crap about the mercantilists and federalists who supported the ratification of the Constitution. I don't worship the Founders. Some were good, some sucked. The Constitution was a loss for freedom, not a win.

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting thread...here is what I see:


Unwillingness to accept American system of rights and therefore a dismissal of the foundations of our country;
Inability to articulate any other system of rights that protects the individual from manipulation by other men
Reliance on philosophers fronting for elite actors who perpetrate new-age style belief systems that weaken the strength of the individual, as described so eloquently under the American concept of sovereign individual.
Confusion between God, Religion and Creator, as described in the Declaration of Indepence.
In general, lot of noise, lots of wiggling by those who are attempting to fight our Founders system.


While I encourage the open discussion and thought exercise, I'm very discouraged that I see such a reliance on unproven systems of rights.

By the way, someone here referred to Rothbard and his definition of Natural Rights. That stuff is an abomination. Did you know that Rothbard grew up a communist and was funded by an elitist. There is so much deception out there, yet people read this stuff without knowing the motives of those who are really behind it.


Did you know that RP learned a great deal of his ideas from Rothbard, et. al.? Yes, there is a lot of disinformation out there-and you're adding to it. :p:(

[diggronpaul]

Rothbard was a great man and contributed FAR more to the liberty movement than you could ever hope to.


Did you know that RP learned a great deal of his ideas from Rothbard, et. al.? Yes, there is a lot of disinformation out there-and you're adding to it. :p:(
Do you realize that it was Rothbard himself who has been quoted as revealing his Communist background....

Rothbard was born to David and Rae Rothbard, who raised their Jewish family in the Bronx. "I grew up in a Communist culture," he recalled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
Anyway, did you actually read his entire discussion of Natural Rights and then compare it to the Founders definition. Rothbard did an incredible job skewing and complicating the matter.

In any event, I did not mean to throw this thread into a different direction, so if you want to discuss Rothbard than I suggest you start another thread.

[nbhadja]

If you don't believe in God, then you can't believe there are rights. Otherwise, you're acting like a Christian.

Theocrat, you are arguing that atheists only believe in material things. No offense, but that is false..

We believe in concepts and ideas, which are not material.

I believe in rights and I do NOT believe in God.

[AutoDas]

Do you realize that it was Rothbard himself who has been quoted as revealing his Communist background....

Anyway, did you actually read his entire discussion of Natural Rights and then compare it to the Founders definition. Rothbard did an incredible job skewing and complicating the matter.


Fallacy of quoting out of context.

"The one important aspect in which my growing up differed from these other Jewish memoirists, of course, is that they were some species of communist or socialist, whereas I was a right-winger and bitterly antisocialist from the very beginning. I grew up in a communist culture[... (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard45.html)]"


In any event, I did not mean to throw this thread into a different direction, so if you want to discuss Rothbard than I suggest you start another thread.

Go run. You know you were wrong.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[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.

Belief in a creator means that an additional contract may exist between you and the creator.

An individual on an Island cannot have rights. They are contingent on the existence of another entity to have an interaction with. The rights may exist implicitly or explicitly within the terms of that interaction.

Another person cannot infringe your 'right' to free speech. Only the government can do that because only the government has a contract with a clause restricting it from restricting your speech. The government can terminate your life. The current contract does not include a clause preventing it.

[Theocrat]

Theocrat, you are arguing that atheists only believe in material things. No offense, but that is false..

We believe in concepts and ideas, which are not material.

I believe in rights and I do NOT believe in God.

That's my point. Concepts and ideas do not comport with the worldview of "atheism" because they are not physical entities, even though "atheism" teaches that there can be no non-physical realities in our existence. The fact that "atheists" use concepts and ideas (such as "rights") proves that they aren't really atheists. In actuality, they are living as theists. However, they want to deny or ignore the foundation for justifying how there can be concepts and ideas (being non-physical in nature) in the universe, and that foundation is God, the eternal, universal, and immaterial Almighty Creator Who gives us our rights and establishes reason to understand those rights.

[Theocrat]

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.

Belief in a creator means that an additional contract may exist between you and the creator.

An individual on an Island cannot have rights. They are contingent on the existence of another entity to have an interaction with. The rights may exist implicitly or explicitly within the terms of that interaction.

Another person cannot infringe your 'right' to free speech. Only the government can do that because only the government has a contract with a clause restricting it from restricting your speech. The government can terminate your life. The current contract does not include a clause preventing it.

Yes, I understand what you've stated here. That's why rights are given when men are in a covenantal union with their Creator through a Mediator. It is a relationship which transcends civil governments and free markets. When that is denied, then the whole notion of rights becomes only as real as the government under which a citizen lives.

[Xenophage]

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?

Before you answer, let me refer you to this key passage in the American Declaration of Independence....



Please, serious answers only, as I think this is an important question that needs to be fleshed-out here given some of the recent discussions I've observed. Thank you.

Do I have to keep defending human rights from a secularist point of view? Human Rights are moral concepts defining a person's freedom of action within a societal context. Rights are not physical things ingrained into our DNA or manifested as invisible halos that God hands out when we're born. Human rights exist because we are volatile beings with the capacity to make moral choices; e.g. choose life, or choose death. If one values one's own life, one recognizes and values the source of that life - their own volition, their reason, their freedom of action - and this is where the concept of a human right beings. Freedom is so necessary to human life and happiness that the various states are inseparable. Human rights are individual, not collective, because all moral concepts relate only to entities that can make choices, and a collective is not even properly an entity at all.

[idiom]

Yes, I understand what you've stated here. That's why rights are given when men are in a covenantal union with their Creator through a Mediator. It is a relationship which transcends civil governments and free markets. When that is denied, then the whole notion of rights becomes only as real as the government under which a citizen lives.

No you really don't understand.

The only 'rights' God confers are the 'rights' you have between you and Him. In your system that would be a right to plead the cross (maybe) and a right to die and ostensibly a right to be Judged.

You are not understanding that without a clause somewhere there is nothing to contain a 'right'.

What a creator does provide is a default set of values. However any world view can create a default set of values. Even Nihilism declares a set of values (valuelessness.)

Atheists can still value life however irrationally, in fact they may value it more, because when they die its over.

Those values that a system or creator implies may or may not be factored into inter-personal contracts or governement constitutions. Outside of those relationships clauses do not exist and 'rights' defacto or otherwise cannot exist.

The 'Fact' of being created equal does not give you a right to equality until the law says it does.


Human Rights are moral concepts defining a person's freedom of action within a societal context.

No, they are legal entites built from a set of values about how governments ought to function.

Rights are not nouns but adjectives describing types of content in agreements. The right action, do the right thing. When the government infringes our 'rights' we mean that they are in violation of their contract (the constitution) with us. Nothing more.

[idiom]

If you want to have a discussion about what rights might be conferred by the Christian God well then we spend time being very specific which I was hoping to avoid.

Abel apparently ahd a right to be kept by his brother, or at least not to be killed. God however did not execute Cain for Murder.

Tamar apparently had a right to recieve semen from her widows brother. Onan failing at this was killed.

Job seemed to lack pretty heftily in rights as God wiped out his fortune, family and health for no good reason. However God did restore him with interest so maybe God violated Jobs rights there.

However Jesus later seems to reinforce the idea that Gods agreements with each individual are totally individual and not comparable.

At any rate you are going to end up with an odd set of clauses in your constitution describing ones rights. And which court is going to hold God in contempt?

What is God's is God's and what is Caesar is Caesars's. He is more than capable of collecting or bestowing whatever is fair. Any rights He grants have no place in any government or courtroom. You can however borrow values.

[tonesforjonesbones]

The communist Hegelian Dialectic is alive and well on this forum. RESIST IT! Tones

[diggronpaul]

No, they are legal entites built from a set of values about how governments ought to function.

Rights are not nouns but adjectives describing types of content in agreements. The right action, do the right thing. When the government infringes our 'rights' we mean that they are in violation of their contract (the constitution) with us. Nothing more.
You're talking about an entirely different set of right: legal rights. This OP asked about unalienable rights, which have no relationship to or dependency on Government.

[diggronpaul]

Fallacy of quoting out of context.

"The one important aspect in which my growing up differed from these other Jewish memoirists, of course, is that they were some species of communist or socialist, whereas I was a right-winger and bitterly antisocialist from the very beginning. I grew up in a communist culture[... (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard45.html)]"



Go run. You know you were wrong.
Have you even read his work, or do you defend him simply because he is part of the club that you wish to be part of. Just read the citation of his reference earlier in this thread and see what he does with (how he manipulates) the concept of Natural Rights. You can clearly see the influence of his background. My post stands.

[InterestedParticipant]

An individual on an Island cannot have rights. They are contingent on the existence of another entity to have an interaction with. The rights may exist implicitly or explicitly within the terms of that interaction.

Another person cannot infringe your 'right' to free speech. Only the government can do that because only the government has a contract with a clause restricting it from restricting your speech. The government can terminate your life. The current contract does not include a clause preventing it.
The thinking displayed here is just bizarre..... an individual on an island can have no right.... Huh? Only a government can infringe on an individual's rights.... what?

These are serious confusions of our system, where we established that each individual in this land is a king (i.e. sovereign) and that no other man is above them. The only thing above each sovereign individual is their creator. Therefore, sovereign individuals can do anything they want except infringe on someone elses ability to do whatever they want. Gov'ts don't even enter the picture and are not required for the system to operate, albeit we (i.e sovereign individuals) decided to establish government later in order to conduct some bureaucratic functions.

[powerofreason]

Have you even read his work, or do you defend him simply because he is part of the club that you wish to be part of. Just read the citation of his reference earlier in this thread and see what he does with (how he manipulates) the concept of Natural Rights. You can clearly see the influence of his background. My post stands.

After reading hundreds of pages of his work, I have concluded that he is 100% pro freedom (ANTI State ANTI War PRO Market), and not influenced in any way, shape, or form by communism or elitism.

[powerofreason]

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.

Belief in a creator means that an additional contract may exist between you and the creator.

An individual on an Island cannot have rights. They are contingent on the existence of another entity to have an interaction with. The rights may exist implicitly or explicitly within the terms of that interaction.

Another person cannot infringe your 'right' to free speech. Only the government can do that because only the government has a contract with a clause restricting it from restricting your speech. The government can terminate your life. The current contract does not include a clause preventing it.

What utter nonsense. I hope no one except you actually believes this garbage.

[AutoDas]

Have you even read his work, or do you defend him simply because he is part of the club that you wish to be part of. Just read the citation of his reference earlier in this thread and see what he does with (how he manipulates) the concept of Natural Rights. You can clearly see the influence of his background. My post stands.

um how does he manipulate natural rights? As far as I can tell he takes the logical conclusion of libertarianism to market anarchy in For A New Liberty.

[diggronpaul]

After reading hundreds of pages of his work, I have concluded that he is 100% pro freedom (ANTI State ANTI War PRO Market), and not influenced in any way, shape, or form by communism or elitism.
That's interesting. Let me ask you, are you well versed in sophistry? Further, I hope you also realize that the one-world-crowd are also "ANTI State ANTI War PRO Market."


um how does he manipulate natural rights? As far as I can tell he takes the logical conclusion of libertarianism to market anarchy in For A New Liberty.
He takes the simplicity of American liberty and divides it into a million pieces, then creates new concept in his book "For a New Liberty"..... this is relativism (by the way, what's wrong with our Founders definition of Liberty, why do we need NEW liberty?). I mean, take this from page 29 of his book.... where did this entire concept of self-ownership come from? This is an abomination of the American system, and it's just plain bizarre.


The libertarian therefore rejects these alternatives and concludes by
adopting as his primary axiom the universal right of self-ownership, a
right held by everyone by virtue of being a human being.

For a New Liberty, page 29
Our system is based on the simplicity of not infringing on another's unalienable rights. Self-ownership is not needed in this understanding, yet he enters it into the thinking of his readers. Once this concept takes hold, it now opens the debate for whether self-ownership can be altered in any way.

In any event, I said before I did not want to disrespect this thread by focusing on just one small actor in history. I won't discuss Rothbard in this thread any further, so if you want to continue this discussion begin another thread, as this thread's purpose is much grander in scope and more important.

[powerofreason]

That's interesting. Let me ask you, are you well versed in sophistry? Further, I hope you also realize that the one-world-crowd are also "ANTI State ANTI War PRO Market."


He takes the simplicity of American liberty and divides it into a million pieces, then creates new concept in his book "For a New Liberty"..... this is relativism (by the way, what's wrong with our Founders definition of Liberty, why do we need NEW liberty?). I mean, take this from page 29 of his book.... where did this entire concept of self-ownership come from? This is an abomination of the American system, and it's just plain bizarre.


Our system is based on the simplicity of not infringing on another's unalienable rights. Self-ownership is not needed in this understanding, yet he enters it into the thinking of his readers. Once this concept takes hold, it now opens the debate for whether self-ownership can be altered in any way.

In any event, I said before I did not want to disrespect this thread by focusing on just one small actor in history. I won't discuss Rothbard in this thread any further, so if you want to continue this discussion begin another thread, as this thread's purpose is much grander in scope and more important.

The "one-world crowd" are anti state anti war and pro market? Well thats news to me. Why don't you read whats at the top of this website, http://lewrockwell.com/, that Ron Paul reads everyday and calls "vitally important" you ignorant fool.

The fact of the matter is, your simpleton version of where our rights comes from is not convincing at all because there is no explanation or reasoning. Its just.... "God."

And I absolutely believe in self-ownership, because it makes sense. I've been convinced. You have not convinced me of anything.

[Kludge]

Self-edit: point made.

[powerofreason]

For fuck's sake, CALM YOUR HYPER-ACTIVE ASS DOWN, MOTHERFUCKER!

Lol I can't help it. I can't understand for the life of me how some people can believe so strongly in something they can't prove.

Like I said before, if you believe in God, and believe thats where our rights come from, thats all well and good. But don't expect other people to be persuaded by your pseudo argument. Keep your faith to yourself imo.

There is a better way to explain why people ought to be free, and it can be understood by people of all faiths and backgrounds. Its called Natural Rights. You can believe in God and still believe in Natural Rights, its not one or the other. Its not some atheist thing.

And for the last time, I am not an atheist. Although I was confirmed into the Catholic Church I am no longer religious at all and I no longer spend any time thinking about religion. In the end its all a big waste of time because no one can know for sure if there is some higher power in the universe. I will continue to live my life according to the Non Aggression Principle, since that makes the most sense to me.

One more comment on the "one world crowd" that Rothbard and Lew Rockwell are supposedly a part of. I know that there are some xenophobic christian right wingers on this forum that love american sovereignty and want the borders shut, well I do want a world with no borders, no borders meaning NO GOVERNMENT, not ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

[diggronpaul]

The fact of the matter is, your simpleton version of where our rights comes from is not convincing at all because there is no explanation or reasoning. Its just.... "God."
Simplicity is power, and the inability to prove or disprove our Creator's existence provides unbreakable power. The genius of this is unfortunately lost here.


And I absolutely believe in self-ownership, because it makes sense. I've been convinced. You have not convinced me of anything.
This concept of self-ownership will eventually allow you to be owned, who cares if the first buyer has to pay you or not.


Lol I can't help it. I can't understand for the life of me how some people can believe so strongly in something they can't prove.
Because this system has created more liberty and wealth for more people than in the history of mankind, that's why I can believe in it so strongly.

This laughter you display in your post can only emanate from a Ponerized fool who demonstrates no respect for those who have sacrificed for thousands of years so that such a system could be born!


Like I said before, if you believe in God, and believe thats where our rights come from, thats all well and good. But don't expect other people to be persuaded by your pseudo argument. Keep your faith to yourself imo.
Religion is not relevant in this thread, the concept evoked by the Founding Fathers was "Creator," which is not dependent on Religion, and in some minds may not even be dependent on the concept of God.


One more comment on the "one world crowd" that Rothbard and Lew Rockwell are supposedly a part of. I know that there are some xenophobic christian right wingers on this forum that love american sovereignty and want the borders shut, well I do want a world with no borders, no borders meaning NO GOVERNMENT, not ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Aha, the real motives are revealed. No wonder you scoff at the American system. I wonder how many others are here who drink the one-world Koolaid!

[powerofreason]

Simplicity is power, and the inability to prove or disprove our Creator's existence provides unbreakable power. The genius of this is unfortunately lost here.


This concept of self-ownership will eventually allow you to be owned, who cares if the first buyer has to pay you or not.


Because this system has created more liberty and wealth for more people than in the history of mankind, that's why I can believe in it so strongly.

This laughter you display in your post can only emanate from a Ponerized fool who demonstrates no respect for those who have sacrificed for thousands of years so that such a system could be born!


Religion is not relevant in this thread, the concept evoked by the Founding Fathers was "Creator," which is not dependent on Religion, and in some minds may not even be dependent on the concept of God.


Aha, the real motives are revealed. No wonder you scoff at the American system. I wonder how many others are here who drink the one-world Koolaid!

I admire the real heroes of the american revolution, the anti government radicals who fought for their freedom and won it, although the ratification of the Constitution guaranteed that freedom would disintegrate over the years.

[Epic]

I admire the real heroes of the american revolution, the anti government radicals who fought for their freedom and won it, although the ratification of the Constitution guaranteed that freedom would disintegrate over the years.

Yeah that was one thing I never really got - they fought so hard for freedom then gave it away.

[powerofreason]

On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution - an essay by Hans Hermann Hoppe (austrian economist)

original link - http://mises.org/story/2874


I - A Country of Pioneers

The first source of national pride is the memory of America's not-so-distant colonial past as a country of pioneers.

In fact, the English settlers coming to North America were the last example of the glorious achievements of what Adam Smith referred to as "a system of natural liberty": the ability of men to create a free and prosperous commonwealth from scratch. Contrary to the Hobbesian account of human nature — **** homini lupus est — the English settlers demonstrated not just the viability but also the vibrancy and attractiveness of a stateless, anarchocapitalist social order. They demonstrated how, in accordance with the views of John Locke, private property originated naturally through a person's original appropriation — his purposeful use and transformation — of previously unused land (wilderness). Furthermore, they demonstrated that, based on the recognition of private property, division of labor, and contractual exchange, men were capable of protecting themselves effectively against antisocial aggressors — first and foremost by means of self-defense (less crime existed then than exists now), and as society grew increasingly prosperous and complex, by means of specialization, i.e., by institutions and agencies such as property registries, notaries, lawyers, judges, courts, juries, sheriffs, mutual defense associations, and popular militias.[1]

Moreover, the American colonists demonstrated the fundamental sociological importance of the institution of covenants: of associations of linguistically, ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous settlers led by and subject to the internal jurisdiction of a popular leader-founder to ensure peaceful human cooperation and maintain law and order.[2]



II - The American Revolution

The second source of national pride is the American Revolution.

In Europe there had been no open frontiers for centuries, and the intra-European colonization experience lay in the distant past. With the growth of the population, societies had assumed an increasingly hierarchical structure: of free men (freeholders) and servants, lords and vassals, overlords, and kings. While distinctly more stratified and aristocratic than colonial America, the so-called feudal societies of medieval Europe were also typically stateless social orders.
"The English settlers demonstrated not just the viability but also the vibrancy and attractiveness of a stateless, anarchocapitalist social order."

A state, in accordance with generally accepted terminology, is defined as a compulsory territorial monopolist of law and order (an ultimate decision maker). Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only "tax" with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign (ultimate decision maker) as the feudal king was on his.[3] However, in the course of many centuries, these originally stateless societies had gradually transformed into absolute — statist — monarchies. While they had initially been acknowledged voluntarily as protectors and judges, European kings had at long last succeeded in establishing themselves as hereditary heads of state. Resisted by the aristocracy but helped along by the "common people," they had become absolute monarchs with the power to tax without consent and to make ultimate decisions regarding the property of free men.

These European developments had a twofold effect on America. On the one hand, England was also ruled by an absolute king, at least until 1688, and when the English settlers arrived on the new continent, the king's rule was extended to America. Unlike the settlers' founding of private property and their private — voluntary and cooperative — production of security and administration of justice, however, the establishment of the royal colonies and administrations was not the result of original appropriation (homesteading) and contract — in fact, no English king had ever set foot on the American continent — but of usurpation (declaration) and imposition.

On the other hand, the settlers brought something else with them from Europe. There, the development from feudalism to royal absolutism had not only been resisted by the aristocracy but it was also opposed theoretically with recourse to the theory of natural rights as it originated within Scholastic philosophy. According to this doctrine, government was supposed to be contractual, and every government agent, including the king, was subject to the same universal rights and laws as everyone else. While this may have been the case in earlier times, it was certainly no longer true for modern absolute kings. Absolute kings were usurpers of human rights and thus illegitimate. Hence, insurrection was not only permitted but became a duty sanctioned by natural law.[4]
"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. … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
– The Declaration of Independence

The American colonists were familiar with the doctrine of natural rights. In fact, in light of their own personal experience with the achievements and effects of natural liberty and as religious dissenters who had left their mother country in disagreement with the king and the Church of England, they were particularly receptive to this doctrine.[5]

Steeped in the doctrine of natural rights, encouraged by the distance of the English king, and stimulated further by the puritanical censure of royal idleness, luxury, and pomp, the American colonists rose up to free themselves of British rule.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, government was instituted to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It drew its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. In contrast, the royal British government claimed that it could tax the colonists without their consent. If a government failed to do what it was designed to do, Jefferson declared, "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."


III - The American Constitution

But what was the next step once independence from Britain had been won? This question leads to the third source of national pride — the American Constitution — and the explanation as to why this Constitution, rather than being a legitimate source of pride, represents a fateful error.

Thanks to the great advances in economic and political theory since the late 1700s, in particular at the hands of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard, we are now able to give a precise answer to this question. According to Mises and Rothbard, once there is no longer free entry into the business of the production of protection and adjudication, the price of protection and justice will rise and their quality will fall. Rather than being a protector and judge, a compulsory monopolist will become a protection racketeer — the destroyer and invader of the people and property that he is supposed to protect, a warmonger, and an imperialist.[6]

Indeed, the inflated price of protection and the perversion of the ancient law by the English king, both of which had led the American colonists to revolt, were the inevitable result of compulsory monopoly. Having successfully seceded and thrown out the British occupiers, it would only have been necessary for the American colonists to let the existing homegrown institutions of self-defense and private (voluntary and cooperative) protection and adjudication by specialized agents and agencies take care of law and order.

This did not happen, however. The Americans not only did not let the inherited royal institutions of colonies and colonial governments wither away into oblivion; they reconstituted them within the old political borders in the form of independent states, each equipped with its own coercive (unilateral) taxing and legislative powers.[7] While this would have been bad enough, the new Americans made matters worse by adopting the American Constitution and replacing a loose confederation of independent states with the central (federal) government of the United States.

This Constitution provided for the substitution of a popularly elected parliament and president for an unelected king, but it changed nothing regarding their power to tax and legislate. To the contrary, while the English king's power to tax without consent had only been assumed rather than explicitly granted and was thus in dispute,[8] the Constitution explicitly granted this very power to Congress. Furthermore, while kings — in theory, even absolute kings — had not been considered the makers but only the interpreters and executors of preexisting and immutable law, i.e., as judges rather than legislators,[9] the Constitution explicitly vested Congress with the power of legislating, and the president and the Supreme Court with the powers of executing and interpreting such legislated law.[10]

In effect, what the American Constitution did was only this: Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country's monopoly of justice and protection.

These caretakers did not own the country, but as long as they were in office, they could make use of it and its residents to their own and their protégés' advantage. However, as elementary economic theory predicts, this institutional setup will not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency of a monopolist of law and order toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only tends to make his exploitation less calculating, more shortsighted, and wasteful. As Rothbard explained,

while a private owner, secure in his property and owning its capital value, plans the use of his resource over a long period of time, the government official must milk the property as quickly as he can, since he has no security of ownership. … [G]overnment officials own the use of resources but not their capital value (except in the case of the "private property" of a hereditary monarch). When only the current use can be owned, but not the resource itself, there will quickly ensue uneconomic exhaustion of the resources, since it will be to no one's benefit to conserve it over a period of time and to every owner's advantage to use it up as quickly as possible. … The private individual, secure in his property and in his capital resource, can take the long view, for he wants to maintain the capital value of his resource. It is the government official who must take and run, who must plunder the property while he is still in command.[11]

Moreover, because the Constitution provided explicitly for "open entry" into state government — anyone could become a member of Congress, president, or a Supreme Court judge — resistance against state property invasions declined; and as the result of "open political competition" the entire character structure of society became distorted, and more and more bad characters rose to the top.[12]

Free entry and competition is not always good. Competition in the production of goods is good, but competition in the production of bads is not. Free competition in killing, stealing, counterfeiting, or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. Yet this is precisely what is instituted by open political competition, i.e., democracy.
"The Americans not only did not let the inherited royal institutions of colonies and colonial governments wither away into oblivion; they reconstituted them within the old political borders in the form of independent states, each equipped with its own coercive (unilateral) taxing and legislative powers."

In every society, people who covet another man's property exist, but in most cases people learn not to act on this desire or even feel ashamed for entertaining it.[13] In an anarchocapitalist society in particular, anyone acting on such a desire is considered a criminal and is suppressed by physical violence. Under monarchical rule, by contrast, only one person — the king — can act on his desire for another man's property, and it is this that makes him a potential threat. However, because only he can expropriate while everyone else is forbidden to do likewise, a king's every action will be regarded with utmost suspicion.[14] Moreover, the selection of a king is by accident of his noble birth. His only characteristic qualification is his upbringing as a future king and preserver of the dynasty and its possessions. This does not assure that he will not be evil, of course; at the same time, however, it does not preclude that a king might actually be a harmless dilettante or even a decent person.

In distinct contrast, by freeing up entry into government, the Constitution permitted anyone to openly express his desire for other men's property; indeed, owing to the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech," everyone is protected in so doing. Moreover, everyone is permitted to act on this desire, provided that he gains entry into government; hence, under the Constitution, everyone becomes a potential threat.

To be sure, there are people who are unafflicted by the desire to enrich themselves at the expense of others and to lord it over them; that is, there are people who wish only to work, produce, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if politics — the acquisition of goods by political means (taxation and legislation) — is permitted, even these harmless people will be profoundly affected.

In order to defend themselves against attacks on their liberty and property by those who have fewer moral scruples, even these honest, hardworking people must become "political animals" and spend more and more time and energy developing their political skills. Given that the characteristics and talents required for political success — good looks, sociability, oratorical power, charisma, etc. — are distributed unequally among men, then those with these particular characteristics and skills will have a sound advantage in the competition for scarce resources (economic success) as compared with those without them.

Worse still, given that, in every society, more "have-nots" of everything worth having exist than "haves," the politically talented who have little or no inhibition against taking property and lording it over others will have a clear advantage over those with such scruples. That is, open political competition favors aggressive, hence dangerous, rather than defensive, hence harmless, political talents and will thus lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing.
"Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country's monopoly of justice and protection."

Unlike kings then, congressmen, presidents, and Supreme Court judges do not and cannot acquire their positions accidentally. Rather, they reach their position because of their proficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Moreover, even outside the orbit of government, within civil society, individuals will increasingly rise to the top of economic and financial success, not on account of their productive or entrepreneurial talents or even their superior defensive political talents, but rather because of their superior skills as unscrupulous political entrepreneurs and lobbyists. Thus, the Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate over all.

Moreover, the constitutionally provided "separation of powers" makes no difference in this regard. Two or even three wrongs do not make a right. To the contrary, they lead to the proliferation, accumulation, reinforcement, and aggravation of error. Legislators cannot impose their will on their hapless subjects without the cooperation of the president as the head of the executive branch of government, and the president in turn will use his position and the resources at his disposal to influence legislators and legislation. And although the Supreme Court may disagree with particular acts of Congress or the president, Supreme Court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and remain dependent on them for funding. As an integral part of the institution of government, they have no interest in limiting but every interest in expanding the government's, and hence their own, power.[15]

[powerofreason]

continued...


IV - Two Hundred Years Later …

After more than two centuries of "constitutionally limited government," the results are clear and incontrovertible. At the outset of the American "experiment," the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and, as expressed in George Washington's Farewell Address, a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically.[16]

Now, year in and year out, the American government expropriates more than 40 percent of the incomes of private producers, making even the economic burden imposed on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and silver have been replaced by government-manufactured paper money, and Americans are being robbed continually through money inflation. The meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid. In fact, every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and re-regulated by ever-higher mountains of paper laws (legislation). With increasing legislation, ever more legal uncertainty and moral hazards have been created, and lawlessness has replaced law and order.
"The meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid. In fact, every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and re-regulated by ever-higher mountains of paper laws."

Last but not least, the commitment to free trade and noninterventionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism. In fact, almost since its beginnings the US government has engaged in relentless aggressive expansionism and, starting with the Spanish-American War and continuing past World War I and World War II to the present, the United States has become entangled in hundreds of foreign conflicts and risen to the rank of the world's foremost warmonger and imperialist power. In addition, while American citizens have become increasingly more defenseless, insecure, and impoverished, and foreigners all over the globe have become ever more threatened and bullied by US military power, American presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court judges have become ever more arrogant, morally corrupt, and dangerous.[17]

What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is — an error.

As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.[18]

Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one's alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one's consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one's alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one's own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking.[19]

Second, it is necessary to offer a positive and inspiring alternative to the present system.

While it is important that the memory of America's past as a land of pioneers and an effective anarchocapitalist system based on self-defense and popular militias be kept alive, we cannot return to the feudal past or the time of the American Revolution. Yet the situation is not hopeless. Despite the relentless growth of statism over the course of the past two centuries, economic development has continued, and our living standards have reached spectacular new heights. Under these circumstances, a completely new option has become viable: the provision of law and order by freely competing private (profit-and-loss) insurance agencies.[20]

Even though hampered by the state, insurance agencies protect private property owners upon payment of a premium against a multitude of natural and social disasters, from floods and hurricanes to theft and fraud. Thus, it would seem that the production of security and protection is the very purpose of insurance. Moreover, people would not turn to just anyone for a service as essential as that of protection. Rather, as de Molinari noted,

Before striking a bargain with [a] producer of security … they will check if he is really strong enough to protect them … [and] whether his character is such that they will not have to worry about his instigating the very aggressions he is supposed to suppress.[21]

In this regard insurance agencies also seem to fit the bill. They are big and in command of the resources — physical and human — necessary to accomplish the task of dealing with the dangers, actual or imagined, of the real world. Indeed, insurers operate on a national or even international scale. They own substantial property holdings dispersed over wide territories and beyond the borders of single states and thus have a manifest self-interest in effective protection. Furthermore, all insurance companies are connected through a complex network of contractual agreements on mutual assistance and arbitration as well as a system of international reinsurance agencies representing a combined economic power that dwarfs most if not all contemporary governments. They have acquired this position because of their reputation as effective, reliable, and honest businesses.
"It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order."

While this may suffice to establish insurance agencies as a possible alternative to the role currently performed by states as providers of law and order, a more detailed examination is needed to demonstrate the principal superiority of such an alternative to the status quo. In order to do this, it is only necessary to recognize that insurance agencies can neither tax nor legislate; that is, the relationship between the insurer and the insured is consensual. Both are free to cooperate or not to cooperate, and this fact has momentous implications. In this regard, insurance agencies are categorically different from states.

The advantages of having insurance agencies provide security and protection are as follows. First, competition among insurers for paying clients will bring about a tendency toward a continuous fall in the price of protection per insured value, thus rendering protection more affordable. In contrast, a monopolistic protector who may tax the protected will charge ever-higher prices for his services.[22]

Second, insurers will have to indemnify their clients in the case of actual damage; hence, they must operate efficiently. Regarding social disasters — crime — in particular, this means that the insurer must be concerned above all with effective prevention, for unless he can prevent a crime, he will have to pay up. Further, if a criminal act cannot be prevented, an insurer will still want to recover the loot, apprehend the offender, and bring him to justice, because in so doing the insurer can reduce his costs and force the criminal — rather than the victim and his insurer — to pay for the damages and cost of indemnification. In distinct contrast, because compulsory monopolist states do not indemnify victims and because they can resort to taxation as a source of funding, they have little or no incentive to prevent crime or to recover loot and capture criminals. If they do manage to apprehend a criminal, they typically force the victim to pay for the criminal's incarceration, thus adding insult to injury.[23]

Third and most important, because the relationship between insurers and their clients is voluntary, insurers must accept private property as an ultimate given and private property rights as immutable law. That is, in order to attract or retain paying clients, insurers will have to offer contracts with specified property and property damage descriptions, rules of procedure, evidence, compensation, restitution, and punishment, as well as intra- and interagency conflict resolution and arbitration procedures.

Moreover, out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual interagency arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the unification of law — of a truly universal or international law — will emerge. Everyone, by virtue of being insured, would thus become tied into a global competitive effort to minimize conflict and aggression. Every single conflict and damage claim, regardless of where and by or against whom, would fall into the jurisdiction of exactly one or more specific and enumerable insurance agencies and their contractually agreed-to arbitration procedures, thereby creating "perfect" legal certainty.
"Under these circumstances, a completely new option has become viable: the provision of law and order by freely competing private (profit-and-loss) insurance agencies."

In striking contrast, as tax-funded monopoly protectors, states do not offer the consumers of protection anything even faintly resembling a service contract. Instead, they operate in a contractual void that allows them to make up and change the rules of the game as they go along. Most remarkably, whereas insurers must submit themselves to independent third-party arbitrators and arbitration proceedings in order to attract voluntary paying clients, states, insofar as they allow for arbitration at all, assign this task to another state-funded and state-dependent judge.[24]

Further implications of this fundamental contrast between insurers as contractual versus states as noncontractual providers of security deserve special attention.

Because they are not subject to and bound by contracts, states typically outlaw the ownership of weapons by their "clients," thus increasing their own security at the expense of rendering their alleged clients defenseless. In contrast, no voluntary buyer of protection insurance would agree to a contract that required him to surrender his right to self-defense and be unarmed or otherwise defenseless. To the contrary, insurance agencies would encourage the ownership of guns and other protective devices among their clients by means of selective price cuts, because the better the private protection of their clients, the lower the insurers' protection and indemnification costs would be.

Moreover, because they operate in a contractual void and are independent of voluntary payment, states arbitrarily define and redefine what is and what is not a punishable "aggression" and what does and does not require compensation. By imposing a proportional or progressive income tax and redistributing income from the rich to the poor, for instance, states in effect define the rich as aggressors and the poor as their victims. (Otherwise, if the rich were not aggressors and the poor not their victims, how could taking something from the former and giving it to the latter be justified?) Or by passing affirmative action laws, states effectively define whites and males as aggressors and blacks and women as their victims. For insurance agencies, any such business conduct would be impossible for two fundamental reasons.[25]

First, all insurance involves the pooling of particular risks into risk classes. It implies that to some of the insured, more will be paid out than what they paid in, and to others, less. However — and this is decisive — no one knows in advance who the "winners" and who the "losers" will be. Winners and losers — and any income redistribution among them — will be randomly distributed. Otherwise, if winners and losers could be systematically predicted, losers would not want to pool their risk with winners but only with other losers because this would lower their insurance premium.
"Because compulsory monopolist states do not indemnify victims and because they can resort to taxation as a source of funding, they have little or no incentive to prevent crime or to recover loot and capture criminals."

Second, it is not possible to insure oneself against any conceivable risk. Rather, it is only possible to insure oneself against accidents, i.e., risks over whose outcome the insured has no control whatsoever and to which he contributes nothing. Thus, it is possible to insure oneself against the risk of death or fire, for instance, but it is not possible to insure oneself against the risk of committing suicide or setting one's own house on fire.

Similarly, it is impossible to insure oneself against the risk of business failure, of unemployment, of not becoming rich, of not feeling like getting up and out of bed in the morning, or of disliking one's neighbors, fellows or superiors, because in each of these cases one has either full or partial control over the event in question. That is, an individual can affect the likelihood of the risk. By their very nature, the avoidance of risks such as these falls into the realm of individual responsibility, and any agency that undertook their insurance would be slated for immediate bankruptcy.

Most significantly for the subject under discussion, the uninsurability of individual actions and sentiments (in contradistinction to accidents) implies that it is also impossible to insure oneself against the risk of damages that are the result of one's prior aggression or provocation. Rather, every insurer must restrict the actions of its clients so as to exclude all aggression and provocation on their part. That is, any insurance against social disasters such as crime must be contingent on the insured submitting themselves to specified norms of nonaggressive, civilized, conduct.

Accordingly, while states as monopolistic protectors can engage in redistributive policies benefiting one group of people at the expense of another, and while as tax-supported agencies they can even "insure" uninsurable risks and protect provocateurs and aggressors, voluntarily funded insurers would be systematically prevented from doing any such thing. Competition among insurers would preclude any form of income and wealth redistribution among various groups of insured, for a company engaging in such practices would lose clients to others refraining from them. Rather, every client would pay exclusively for his own risk, respectively that of people with the same (homogeneous) risk exposure that he faces.[26] Nor would voluntarily funded insurers be able to "protect" any person from the consequences of his own erroneous, foolish, risky, or aggressive conduct or sentiment. Competition between insurers would instead systematically encourage individual responsibility, and any known provocateur and aggressor would be excluded as a bad insurance risk from any insurance coverage whatsoever and be rendered an economically isolated, weak, and vulnerable outcast.

Finally, with regard to foreign relations, because states can externalize the costs of their own actions onto hapless taxpayers, they are permanently prone to becoming aggressors and warmongers. Accordingly, they tend to fund and develop weapons of aggression and mass destruction. In distinct contrast, insurers will be prevented from engaging in any form of external aggression because any aggression is costly and requires higher insurance premiums, implying the loss of clients to other, nonaggressive competitors. Insurers will engage exclusively in defensive violence, and instead of acquiring weapons of aggression and mass destruction, they will tend to invest in the development of weapons of defense and of targeted retaliation.[27]


V - Revolution by Means of Secession

Even though all of this is clear, how can we ever succeed in implementing such a fundamental constitutional reform? Insurance agencies are presently restricted by countless regulations that prevent them from doing what they could and naturally would do. How can they be freed from these regulations?
"Rather than by means of a top-down reform, under the current conditions, one's strategy must be one of a bottom-up revolution."

Essentially, the answer to this question is the same as that given by the American revolutionaries more than two hundred years ago: through the creation of free territories and by means of secession.

In fact, under today's democratic conditions, this answer is even truer than it was in the days of kings. For then, under monarchical conditions, the advocates of an antistatist liberal-libertarian social revolution still had an option that has since been lost. Liberal-libertarians in the old days could — and frequently did — believe in the possibility of simply converting the king to their view, thereby initiating a "revolution from the top." No mass support was necessary for this — just the insight of an enlightened prince.[28]

However realistic this might have been then, this top-down strategy of social revolution would be impossible today. Political leaders are selected nowadays according to their demagogic talents and proven records as habitual immoralists, as has been explained above; consequently, the chance of converting them to liberal-libertarian views must be considered even lower than that of converting a king who simply inherited his position.

Moreover, the state's protection monopoly is now considered public rather than private property, and government rule is no longer tied to a particular individual but to specified functions exercised by anonymous functionaries. Hence, the one-or-few-men-conversion strategy can no longer work. It does not matter if one converts a few top government officials — the president and some leading senators or judges, for instance — because within the rules of democratic government no single individual has the power to abdicate the government's monopoly of protection. Kings had this power, but presidents do not. The president can resign from his position, of course, only to have it taken over by someone else. He cannot dissolve the governmental protection monopoly because according to the rules of democracy, "the people," not their elected representatives, are considered the "owners" of government.

Thus, rather than by means of a top-down reform, under the current conditions, one's strategy must be one of a bottom-up revolution. At first, the realization of this insight would seem to make the task of a liberal-libertarian social revolution impossible, for does this not imply that one would have to persuade a majority of the public to vote for the abolition of democracy and an end to all taxes and legislation? And is this not sheer fantasy, given that the masses are always dull and indolent, and even more so given that democracy, as explained above, promotes moral and intellectual degeneration? How in the world can anyone expect that a majority of an increasingly degenerate people accustomed to the "right" to vote should ever voluntarily renounce the opportunity of looting other people's property? Put this way, one must admit that the prospect of a social revolution must indeed be regarded as virtually nil. Rather, it is only on second thought, upon regarding secession as an integral part of any bottom-up strategy, that the task of a liberal-libertarian revolution appears less than impossible, even if it still remains a daunting one.
"All revolutions, whether good or bad, are started by minorities; and the secessionist route toward social revolution takes explicit cognizance of this important fact."

How does secession fit into a bottom-up strategy of social revolution? More important, how can a secessionist movement escape the Southern Confederacy's fate of being crushed by a tyrannical and dangerously armed central government?

In response to these questions, it is first necessary to remember that neither the original American Revolution nor the American Constitution was the result of the will of the majority of the population. A third of the American colonists were actually Tories, and another third were occupied with daily routines and did not care either way. No more than a third of the colonists were actually committed to and supportive of the revolution, yet they carried the day. And as far as the Constitution is concerned, the overwhelming majority of the American public was opposed to its adoption, and its ratification represented more of a coup d'état by a tiny minority than the general will. All revolutions, whether good or bad, are started by minorities; and the secessionist route toward social revolution, which necessarily involves the breaking-away of a smaller number of people from a larger one, takes explicit cognizance of this important fact.

Second, it is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government — whether of kings or caretakers — rests solely on opinion and not on physical force. The agents of government are never more than a small proportion of the total population under their control. This implies that no government can possibly enforce its will upon the entire population unless it finds widespread support and voluntary cooperation within the nongovernmental public. It implies likewise that every government can be brought down by a mere change in public opinion, i.e., by the withdrawal of the public's consent and cooperation.[29]

And while it is undeniably true that, after more than two centuries of democracy, the American public has become so degenerate, morally and intellectually, that any such withdrawal must be considered impossible on a nationwide scale, it would not seem insurmountably difficult to win a secessionist-minded majority in sufficiently small districts or regions of the country.

In fact, given an energetic minority of intellectual elites inspired by the vision of a free society in which law and order is provided by competitive insurers, and given furthermore that — certainly in the United States, which owes its very existence to a secessionist act — secession is still held to be legitimate and in accordance with the "original" democratic ideal of self-determination (rather than majority rule)[30] by a substantial number of people, there seems to be nothing unrealistic about assuming that such secessionist majorities exist or can be created at hundreds of locations all over the country.
"It is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government — whether of kings or caretakers — rests solely on opinion and not on physical force."

In fact, under the rather realistic assumption that the US central government as well as the social-democratic states of the West in general are bound for economic bankruptcy (much like the socialist people's democracies of the East collapsed economically some years ago), present tendencies toward political disintegration will likely be strengthened in the future. Accordingly, the number of potential secessionist regions will continue to rise, even beyond its current level.

Finally, the insight into the widespread and growing secessionist potential also permits an answer to the last question regarding the dangers of a central government crackdown.

While it is important in this regard that the memory of the secessionist past of the United States be kept alive, it is even more important for the success of a liberal-libertarian revolution to avoid the mistakes of the second failed attempt at secession. Fortunately, the issue of slavery, which complicated and obscured the situation in 1861,[31] has been resolved. However, another important lesson must be learned by comparing the failed second American experiment with secession to the successful first one.

The first American secession was facilitated significantly by the fact that at the center of power in Britain, public opinion concerning the secessionists was hardly unified. In fact, many prominent British figures such as Edmund Burke and Adam Smith openly sympathized with the secessionists. Apart from purely ideological reasons, which rarely affect more than a handful of philosophical minds, this lack of a unified opposition to the American secessionists in British public opinion can be attributed to two complementary factors. On the one hand, a multitude of regional and cultural-religious affiliations as well as of personal and family ties between Britain and the American colonists existed. On the other hand, the American events were considered far from home and the potential loss of the colonies as economically insignificant.

In both regards, the situation in 1861 was distinctly different. To be sure, at the center of political power, which had shifted to the northern states by then, opposition to the secessionist Southern Confederacy was not unified, and the Confederate cause also had supporters in the North. However, fewer cultural bonds and kinship ties existed between the American North and South than had existed between Britain and the American colonists, and the secession of the Southern Confederacy involved about half the territory and a third of the entire population of the United States and thus struck Northerners as close to home and as a significant economic loss. Therefore, it was comparatively easier for the Northern power elite to mold a unified front of "progressive" Yankee culture versus a culturally backward and "reactionary" Dixieland.

In light of these considerations, then, it appears strategically advisable not to attempt again what in 1861 failed so painfully — for contiguous states or even the entire South trying to break away from the tyranny of Washington, D.C.

Rather, a modern liberal-libertarian strategy of secession should take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the 12th until well into the 17th century (with the emergence of the modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominantly feudal social structure.[32]

$35 $21
"Political leaders are selected nowadays according to their demagogic talents and proven records as habitual immoralists."

By choosing this model and striving to create an America punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities — a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos, and Liechtensteins strewn out over the entire continent — two otherwise unattainable but central objectives can be accomplished. First, besides recognizing the fact that the liberal-libertarian potential is distributed highly unevenly across the country, such a strategy of piecemeal withdrawal renders secession less threatening politically, socially, and economically. Second, by pursuing this strategy simultaneously at a great number of locations all over the country, it becomes exceedingly difficult for the central state to create the unified opposition in public opinion to the secessionists that would secure the level of popular support and voluntary cooperation necessary for a successful crackdown.[33]

If we succeed in this endeavor, if we then proceed to return all public property into appropriate private hands and adopt a new "constitution" that declares all taxation and legislation henceforth unlawful, and if we then finally allow insurance agencies to do what they are destined to do, we truly can be proud again and America will be justified in claiming to provide an example to the rest of the world.

And thats whats up!

[idiom]

These are serious confusions of our system,.... Gov'ts don't even enter the picture

If self-contradiction isn't bizarre then I don't know what is.


You're talking about an entirely different set of right: legal rights. This OP asked about unalienable rights, which have no relationship to or dependency on Government.

I am talking about *all* rights. The OP is confused about the nature of rights.


What utter nonsense. I hope no one except you actually believes this garbage.

A lot of people do. Your reaction is normal when encountering the discovery of such a fundamental error that the entire thought process on a subject needs to be junked.


I admire the real heroes of the american revolution, the anti government radicals who fought for their freedom and won it, although the ratification of the Constitution guaranteed that freedom would disintegrate over the years.

It was the longest term solution they knew of. You think a bunch of anarchists running around would have been just as noble and free 200 years later?

[powerofreason]

If self-contradiction isn't bizarre then I don't know what is.



I am talking about *all* rights. The OP is confused about the nature of rights.



A lot of people do. Your reaction is normal when encountering the discovery of such a fundamental error that the entire thought process on a subject needs to be junked.



It was the longest term solution they knew of. You think a bunch of anarchists running around would have been just as noble and free 200 years later?

Lmao

that is all

[ourlongroad]

Good healthy discussion here, albeit lots of misunderstanding. The thread was started to make people think about this issue, and I hope it's served its purpose and prompted people to go back and read historical materials to reflect on their own assumptions. Overall, I think we've all lost sight of the fundamentals - me included ;)

[powerofreason]

It was the longest term solution they knew of. You think a bunch of anarchists running around would have been just as noble and free 200 years later?

If the governing structure was completely dismantled, and not resurrected by a meddling third party within a short amount of time, it would be very difficult for any group of elitists to establish legitimacy. If anarchy were maintained, we would be the most prosperous country on Earth by a very large amount and there would likely be many more anarcho-capitalist countries around the world. Of course today we have the UN, which would never allow any such freedom to last for long. Look at what they did to Somalia, for example.

Unfortunately, anarchy was not a well developed theory at the time of the American Revolution.

And, if you actually consider what the Constitution explicitly allows the government to do, you see the fatal flaws that would eventually doom us to the mixture of socialism/fascism and just downright Statism.

[idiom]

Statism:

Any form of agreement between two or more people for more than 30 seconds.

[powerofreason]

Statism:

Any form of agreement between two or more people for more than 30 seconds.

No. That is voluntaryism. The State is coercive. Big difference, unless you have no morals.

[powerofreason]

Coercion: Pay me 10,000 dollars in taxes or I will kidnap and imprison you. You use the roads, don't you?

Voluntary: If you pay me 500 dollars I will fix your window.

Comprende?

[Athan]

Just came in to say this is a non-issue and this is something bill o'reilly would love because it DIVIDES Americans instead of gets them banding together to secure their liberty from enemies.

Atheists and Christian Ron Paul supporters don't really need to fight each other about this.

[MikeStanart]

Just came in to say this is a non-issue and this is something bill o'reilly would love because it DIVIDES Americans instead of gets them banding together to secure their liberty from enemies.

Atheists and Christian Ron Paul supporters don't really need to fight each other about this.

I completely agree.

Why do people feel the need to poke holes into other's personal beliefs?

Why can't people just respect other's views?

To Theocrat:

As innocent as some of this discussion may seem to some; your end goal in this conversation is an attempt to tear apart the beliefs of others. You may carry this discussion with grace and maturity, but your end goals are evil.

P.S: Did i mention I'm also a Christian?

[ourlongroad]

I completely agree.

Why do people feel the need to poke holes into other's personal beliefs?

Why can't people just respect other's views?
I see a lot of personal attacks all over this forum, I wouldn't say this thread was any worse than usual, even though i do find the personal attacks unnecessary and unproductive.

I would, however, like to be clear, the intention of this thread was to discuss the reference in the American Declaration of Independence that specifically uses the term "Creator" in order to define American's sovereignty and unalienable rights. I think that this is a healthy discussion and thought exercise, especially for those who must reconcile their support of liberty and unalienable rights while challenging the notion of a Creator.

Finally, I do find it ironic that one would attempt to label someone else's motives as "evil" while in the same breath castigating them for attempting to poke holes in other's beliefs.

[Theocrat]

I completely agree.

Why do people feel the need to poke holes into other's personal beliefs?

Why can't people just respect other's views?

To Theocrat:

As innocent as some of this discussion may seem to some; your end goal in this conversation is an attempt to tear apart the beliefs of others. You may carry this discussion with grace and maturity, but your end goals are evil.

P.S: Did i mention I'm also a Christian?

No, my end goal is for people to believe the truth. I attempt to do this by helping people be more consistent with their professed beliefs. Yet, some people on here choose to criticize the very things which have made our nation great (like Christianity) while having no philosophical grounds to do so, at least in a logical and moral way.

Just as Dr. Paul deals with the issues on a basic philosophical level, so do I. And in this thread, the belief in the existence of rights is a philosophical issue, one that is not supported by any non-theistic worldview (as I've shown). Just in passing I would mention that Jesus also dealt with his accusers and scoffers on a philosophical/historical level to show them the hypocrisy of their beliefs and convictions against Him.

I hope this clears up any of my motives which you have falsely accused as having "an evil end."

[MikeStanart]

I see a lot of personal attacks all over this forum, I wouldn't say this thread was any worse than usual, even though i do find the personal attacks unnecessary and unproductive.

I would, however, like to be clear, the intention of this thread was to discuss the reference in the American Declaration of Independence that specifically uses the term "Creator" in order to define American's sovereignty and unalienable rights. I think that this is a healthy discussion and thought exercise, especially for those who must reconcile their support of liberty and unalienable rights while challenging the notion of a Creator.

Finally, I do find it ironic that one would attempt to label someone else's motives as "evil" while in the same breath castigating them for attempting to poke holes in other's beliefs.

Motives do not equal beliefs. I don't see any irony there.

[powerofreason]

I completely agree.

Why do people feel the need to poke holes into other's personal beliefs?

Why can't people just respect other's views?

To Theocrat:

As innocent as some of this discussion may seem to some; your end goal in this conversation is an attempt to tear apart the beliefs of others. You may carry this discussion with grace and maturity, but your end goals are evil.

P.S: Did i mention I'm also a Christian?

Shut up! Praise Jeezus!

[ourlongroad]

The central argument of this wonderful book [Dialectic of Enlightenment (http://www.amazon.com/Dialectic-Enlightenment-Max-Horkheimer/dp/0826400930)] is that myth is
already enlightenment because it tries to explain the world and gain utility from
it; and enlightenment is already myth for it tries to exclude anything that is different
or contradicts Enlightened Reason. As Adorno & Horkheimer put it:

"Enlightenment has a mythical horror to myth."

Enlightenment obsessively tries to free itself from myth, but in doing so it becomes
also mythical. This obsession takes the form of a saturating, technical rationality that
ends in the horror of ethnic genocide. This is, as Habermas said, "the black book
of Western philosophy."

[powerofreason]

The central argument of this wonderful book [Dialectic of Enlightenment (http://www.amazon.com/Dialectic-Enlightenment-Max-Horkheimer/dp/0826400930)] is that myth is
already enlightenment because it tries to explain the world and gain utility from
it; and enlightenment is already myth for it tries to exclude anything that is different
or contradicts Enlightened Reason. As Adorno & Horkheimer put it:

"Enlightenment has a mythical horror to myth."

Enlightenment obsessively tries to free itself from myth, but in doing so it becomes
also mythical. This obsession takes the form of a saturating, technical rationality that
ends in the horror of ethnic genocide. This is, as Habermas said, "the black book
of Western philosophy."

Except people don't need to use myths to explain the world anymore, because now we have something really cool called science. I'm sure the cavemen would have appreciated this book though, if they could have read.

[powerofreason]

The central argument of this wonderful book [Dialectic of Enlightenment (http://www.amazon.com/Dialectic-Enlightenment-Max-Horkheimer/dp/0826400930)] is that myth is
already enlightenment because it tries to explain the world and gain utility from
it; and enlightenment is already myth for it tries to exclude anything that is different
or contradicts Enlightened Reason. As Adorno & Horkheimer put it:

"Enlightenment has a mythical horror to myth."

Enlightenment obsessively tries to free itself from myth, but in doing so it becomes
also mythical. This obsession takes the form of a saturating, technical rationality that
ends in the horror of ethnic genocide. This is, as Habermas said, "the black book
of Western philosophy."

This actually might be the most ridiculous and nonsensical post ever made on RPFs.

[idiom]

Except people don't need to use myths to explain the world anymore, because now we have something really cool called science. I'm sure the cavemen would have appreciated this book though, if they could have read.

We use myths to operate everyday. We treat objects made up mostly of vacuum as solid. We treat fiat currency as tradeable. We treat a common set of values as 'rights'.

And then we go and post on the internet about how our myths are better than the old myths.

[powerofreason]

We use myths to operate everyday. We treat objects made up mostly of vacuum as solid. We treat fiat currency as tradeable. We treat a common set of values as 'rights'.

And then we go and post on the internet about how our myths are better than the old myths.

myth: a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people

Not the the things you said.

Try again.

[idiom]

Once upon a time a President expanded governement and went to war. This ended a terrible economic depression.

Yet another myth that doesn't exist in the 'modern' world.

[Theocrat]

Once upon a time a President expanded governement and went to war. This ended a terrible economic depression.

Yet another myth that doesn't exist in the 'modern' world.

Or the myth that once upon a time billions of years ago, nothing exploded. From this explosion, dirt formed. It rained on the dirt for millions of years, and the dirt became primordial soup. From this primordial soup, life began to evolve with the first cell. This cell for some reason was able to create another cell from itself until it formed different kinds of cells which made an organism. This organism somehow found another organism to mate with of the same cellular structure, and they had babies. The babies evolved for several millions of years until today we have human beings. We're waiting to evolve again, but we sure like to believe dead bones in the dirt did it. And so, we create massive labs and classrooms to teach people of this great myth about how we're just animals. The people live their lives like animals, and there is much suffering in the world. We begin to look back to the dirt as our final resting place, but only after we find meaning as cosmic specks in a galactic blip of a gigantic universe.

[nbhadja]

No, my end goal is for people to believe the truth. I attempt to do this by helping people be more consistent with their professed beliefs. Yet, some people on here choose to criticize the very things which have made our nation great (like Christianity) while having no philosophical grounds to do so, at least in a logical and moral way.

Just as Dr. Paul deals with the issues on a basic philosophical level, so do I. And in this thread, the belief in the existence of rights is a philosophical issue, one that is not supported by any non-theistic worldview (as I've shown). Just in passing I would mention that Jesus also dealt with his accusers and scoffers on a philosophical/historical level to show them the hypocrisy of their beliefs and convictions against Him.

I hope this clears up any of my motives which you have falsely accused as having "an evil end."

The bottomline: Religion or the belief in god is NOT needed in a free society. In fact, organized religion is a burden to freedom.

[idiom]

The bottomline: Religion or the belief in god is NOT needed in a free society. In fact, organized religion is a burden to freedom.

Tell it to the Somali's.

[powerofreason]

Tell it to the Somali's.

Whats that supposed to mean?

[idiom]

Well organized religion is helping Somalia to rebound in substantial ways after their disastrous corrupt central government fell apart decades ago.

[powerofreason]

Well organized religion is helping Somalia to rebound in substantial ways after their disastrous corrupt central government fell apart decades ago.

Somalia saw substantial increases in standard of living because their government was eliminated. They had the same religion before and after. The U.N. got involved and raised the specter of a new government in the region, which caused various tribal groups to war against each other to try to be on top when it came time to form the new government. A transitional government is in place now, we can only hope that it goes up in flames so the Somalis have a chance at peace again.

[idiom]

Good thing that peace loving Islamic government the people set up was quickly crushed by Ethiopia then.

[powerofreason]

Good thing that peace loving Islamic government the people set up was quickly crushed by Ethiopia then.

Well its only good if Ethiopia got out of there right after, although somehow I doubt thats what happened. And of course, the Ethiopian army is funded by theft so I can't endorse anything they do.

[Join The Paul Side]

Apparently you've never heard the theory of natural rights.

Yep. You're right. And the steak or chicken you had for dinner had rights too. So did the vegetables you ate as well. I'm sure as living organisms they had rights. Yet you served them on your dinner plate. :rolleyes:

[Join The Paul Side]

Can someone here please explain to me how one can simultaneously accept the concept of unalienable Rights while disputing the concept of a creator?

Before you answer, let me refer you to this key passage in the American Declaration of Independence....



Please, serious answers only, as I think this is an important question that needs to be fleshed-out here given some of the recent discussions I've observed. Thank you.


I'll answer your question quite simply, actually.

From the evidence at hand, it is clear cut that our Founding Fathers believed in a Creator.

Some of the Founding Fathers did not beileve in Christianity while others did. However most agreed in a higher being as their "Creator."

Atheism (those who do not believe in God) is not a new phenomenon. I'm quite sure our Founding Fathers dealt with Atheism in their day as well. Which brings us to The Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers needed to govern all, not just those who believed in God (or a God, or multiple gods for that matter). While I'm sure they did not agree on exactly Who created everybody, including Atheists, they did agree that every human being, whether they were a believer or not, were entitled to inalienable rights under their Creator. The only way they could accomplish this equally and unequivocally without discrimination was to ackknowledge the rights of everybody and through rule of law punish all who broke the law (Creationist and Atheist).

It didn't matter to them if somebody who broke the law believed in God or not. Everybody had Constitutional rights, everybody was subject to rule of law.

Why this continues to be debated is beyond my understanding.

[powerofreason]

Yep. You're right. And the steak or chicken you had for dinner had rights too. So did the vegetables you ate as well. I'm sure as living organisms they had rights. Yet you served them on your dinner plate. :rolleyes:

Nah. Do some reading bud.

[idiom]

Only PowerofReason has the authority to determine what rights are.

[Join The Paul Side]

Only PowerofReason has the authority to determine what rights are.


:D

[Theocrat]

The bottomline: Religion or the belief in god is NOT needed in a free society. In fact, organized religion is a burden to freedom.

Our Founding Fathers would greatly disagree with you. Click on the link in my signature if you desire more information concerning that.

[InterestedParticipant]

The bottomline: Religion or the belief in god is NOT needed in a free society. In fact, organized religion is a burden to freedom.
I believe you're conflating Creator, God and Religion. Declaration of Independence only mentions Creator.

[powerofreason]

The bottomline: Religion or the belief in god is NOT needed in a free society. In fact, organized religion is a burden to freedom.

Its a huge burden. I'm so glad I decided to question my mindless beliefs one day. Its great to be free of those invisible chains that once existed around my neck.