Are rights objectively real?

[Master PO]

Please keep your posts to the topics in this thread to avoid misunderstanding.

i gave a reason of why"system"

 

[Master PO]

What makes you the authority on natural rights? How did you come to your definition of natural rights?

this is not new, natural rights follow nature, .......the name natural rights

speech, create, associate, own property, walk, are all natural to the body.

 

[devildavid]

this is not new, natural rights follow nature, .......the name natural rights

speech, create, associate, own property, walk, are all natural to the body.

You are repeating meaningless phrases. Owning property is not natural.

 

[Master PO]

You are repeating meaningless phrases. Owning property is not natural.

yes it is, because i can use my labor, my sweat, to exchange it for property

 

[Quag]

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Rights are innate but unsecure. Governments secure them.

A person born into slavery has a right to be free.

In our present society they should not even be born into slavery, but that is not the case for all socities and is rather a new concept

That right to freedom is being violated. The arguments against slavery that ultimately led to its demise as well as the segregation that followed were exactly that and everyone from Lincoln to MLK used the DoI and the innate rights of man to fight the injustice that slavery represents.

You can say it is against the innate rights but unless you can prove and define what are innate rights then it is just a claim. You could also say that it is better for a society to not have slavery because it goes against the philisophical idea that you should be free to do what you want as long as you dont infringe upon the rights of others. Again this is a philosophy not an innate right.

Your argument is that there is nothing 'inherently' wrong with the practice of slavery. those who fought to end it would disagree.

Pathetic strawman I never said there was nothign wrong with slavery. I find it repsulive, however if we were born 1000 years ago we might have very different ideas.
Fact is that rights derive from society and are enforced by govt. Society changes and thus so do rights.

 

[Quag]

you showed nothing, government has never created a right.

in fact if government ever created a right, they would violate federal Enabling laws.

BS I showed you exactly where they created rights, You however have failed utterly to prove they didnt or that natural rights even exist

 

[Quag]

I think this is also coloured by how you view government. If you view you government as a tyranny then you might get drawn to the idea that we have god given rights. If you view government as a way that humans can form equitable social groupings on appropriate scales then you might be more drawn to a rational explanation. Conspiritardation has a lot to answer for in this respect.

I say govts but it is the society that decides what is rights, sometimes, escpecially in non democratic societies the govt can impose their view against the will of the people but if they go to far they will not stay in control for very long.

 

[Quag]

I will simplify my position since it seems to have gone over your heads. Actually I think that your bias and a bit of parroting what you normally say when debating things like this have blinded you a bit. So this should clear things up.

1. I do not define natural rights the same way that you guys apparently do. I define natural rights as a concept that is the result of human evolution.

2. I do not subscribe to any concept that involves magical thinking.

3. I am not arguing the same thing that Christians argue (about natural rights). I will not respond to any further assumptions that I am. Nor try to explain over and over that no I dont think natural rights exist as if they were a thing or fabric of reality.

4. I clearly said that natural rights are a emotional response to the human condition and are subjective in details, but objective in the sense that they conceptually exists as ideas. I never said or implied that natural law or natural rights existed in some magical place and cannot be changed. Hell I dont even understand where that magical place could be. You guys are simply building a strawman that you want me to defend. ANd that I will not do.

5. I implore that we talk about the science involved in the concept of natural rights rather than rehashing that it isnt magical. We all not there isnt magic involved (except Christians and new agers)

I was trying to point out the historical background (I wasnt putting myself in the "universal natural law" crowd) Yes to a extent I have cherry picked history for my own argument. But my intention isnt to just keep repeating historical accounts, I am trying to lay a foundation for a non-traditional view of natural rights based on science instead of religious views and magical thinking. So my definition of natural rights are not going to be found in Websters dictionaries (nor the bible).

So if we could move to debating this instead of bashing Christians for a change that would be great.

If you are using a definition of natural rights that is unique unto youself then it is pointless to contiunue. You do not get to change the english language.
As to bashing Christians I havent even mentioned them.

 

[Quag]

yes it is, because i can use my labor, my sweat, to exchange it for property

Only beacuse you live in a society that allows you to own property.

 

[NO1]

You could have googled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism#Rational_intuition

Still I don't think it's relevent, Locke was just finding a solution to the political problem he had at the time.

 

[Master PO]

BS I showed you exactly where they created rights, You however have failed utterly to prove they didnt or that natural rights even exist

you showed nothing from government creating any rights, because that is not possible.

 

[Master PO]

Only beacuse you live in a society that allows you to own property.

oh, people had no property before government....:lamo

 

[Henrin]

You are repeating meaningless phrases. Owning property is not natural.

:lol: How is owning property not natural? How do you think countries even got claim to land anyway? Did you even think that position through?

 

[William Rea]

[emoji38] How is owning property not natural? How do you think countries even got claim to land anyway? Did you even think that position through?

How do you create and enforce ownership?

 

[Henrin]

Only beacuse you live in a society that allows you to own property.

This is kind of funny. So basically, the government created the ability of people to own what they have in their hand. If I pick up an acorn off the floor of the woods in your mind that can't be mine unless a government comes along and approves of it. Hilarious.

 

[William Rea]

This is kind of funny. So basically, the government created the ability of people to own what they have in their hand. If I pick up an acorn off the floor of the woods in your mind that can't be mine unless a government comes along and approves of it. Hilarious.

No, it is not naturally yours by right. There is nothing that objectively says that you have a right to that acorn. Can you point me to a definitive set of objective rights?

 

[Henrin]

No, it is not naturally yours by right. There is nothing that objectively says that you have a right to that acorn. Can you point me to a definitive set of objective rights?

What claim do you have to it? I found it and it has no prior owner, so why do I not have claim to it?

 

[William Rea]

What claim do you have to it? I found it and it has no prior owner, so why do I not have claim to it?

All you have is an acorn in your hand, how are you going to claim it? Why does having no prior owner matter? Is the tree that it fell from a prior owner, does the tree not have natural rights? Why are all these rules required if your ownership of it is innate and objective?

 

[Quag]

you showed nothing from government creating any rights, because that is not possible.

You are wrong

 

[Quag]

oh, people had no property before government....:lamo

You can only have property if others allow it.
All societies have some form of govt down to the primitive tribe

 

[Quag]

This is kind of funny. So basically, the government created the ability of people to own what they have in their hand. If I pick up an acorn off the floor of the woods in your mind that can't be mine unless a government comes along and approves of it. Hilarious.

If you find an acorn it is yours as long as you hold it, If I come along and take it you no longer have it and it becomes mine
You have no inherent right to it
Your rights to have it exists because society says you can, and govts enforce that right.
Without society there are no rights.

 

[Henrin]

If you find an acorn it is yours as long as you hold it, If I come along and take it you no longer have it and it becomes mine
You have no inherent right to it
Your rights to have it exists because society says you can, and govts enforce that right.
Without society there are no rights.

You just said theft is equivalent to acquiring someone free of force. Regardless, the ability to protect something and the ability to own it are not one in the same. When I find the acorn is my property and it is something that I own. If I can protect the property that I have acquired or not is another matter and has nothing to do with the claims that I have established. but merely the ability to maintain them from aggressive forces.

 

[William Rea]

You can only have property if others allow it.
All societies have some form of govt down to the primitive tribe

It's like Anarchism is just not extreme enough for these people!

 

[Quag]

You just said theft is equivalent to acquiring someone free of force.

Really Ok?

Regardless, the ability to protect something and the ability to own it are not one in the same. When I find the acorn is my property and it is something that I own.

Why? because you say so?
Well I say its mine so hand it over.

If I can protect the property that I have acquired or not is another matter and has nothing to do with the claims that I have established. but merely the ability to maintain them from aggressive forces.

Whether you can protect it or not is irrelevant you havent proven it is yours and besides I saw it first.

 

[William Rea]

Really Ok?




Why? because you say so?
Well I say its mine so hand it over.

Whether you can protect it or not is irrelevant you havent proven it is yours and besides I saw it first.

No you didn't, me and my Dad saw it first, and we've got these spears here. So, what were you saying about objective rights?