Do natural rights exist?[W:811:1629]

[Grand Mal]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

That's an interesting concept: Live in the city and have very few rights, move to the suburbs and get more rights, move to the exurbs and get even more, to an isolated small town and get more still. What about those pesky police helicopters that prevent people from having their own private auto salvage yard?

I have indeed noticed less of a tendency up in your "Great White North" to enforce the concept unless the government specifically gives you permission to go somewhere, you can't go there.

Actually, you can go anywhere unless the gov't specifically says you can't. Same as the US,
Don't kid yourself, you have exatly th same rights as everyone else in the world- the rights your government allows you. You're lucky to live in a very liberal country that allows you many rights.

 

[Surrealistik]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Unfortunately natural rights, whether derived from a god or otherwise are an absolute fantasy. The only rights that exist are those enshrined by law and upheld by persuasion, consensus and force.

 

[joG]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I can't grasp the logic behind the concept of natural rights. I can understand it from a theological perspective, that God has endowed each human being with certain rights... but I'm an atheist, so that doesn't quite work for me. What makes sense to me is that our rights come from our laws. We granted each individual a set of rights when we formed the government. There's nothing natural about the concept, it's entirely human-made.

Humans seem to be born with a set of values. That's nature for you.

 

[joG]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Every time a super basic civil right is discussed, somebody has to tard up the thread with some comment that so-and-so isn't a "natural right." I just ignore those parts of their posts.

Actually, given our Constitution and increasing scientific insight into how values are part of human nature, the topic is quite well worth thinking about.

 

[Pozessed]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

That may be your personal belief, but our law says exactly the contrary--just as the English common law it derives from had said for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that it is a self-evident truth that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these is the right to life. That same principle was codified fifteen years later in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and in 1868 it was again codified in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so that it applies to both the federal and state governments.

If people in this country had no right to life, it would make no sense for the Constitution to say that "no person shall . . . be deprived of life . . . without due process of law." No procedure would be needed to deprive a person of a thing he had no right to in the first place. Until such time as the two due process clauses are nullified by amendment, all persons in this country will have a legally enforceable right to life. It is exactly because they have that right that we don't execute even the worst murderers without giving them a jury trial and, if convicted, appeals.

As you have pointed out, it is evident that without the constitution our rights would not exist. Just because our forefathers stated American rights should be considered self evident, does not mean its true. The fact that we need a government to protect those rights; contradicts those rights from being a natural and self evident affect.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Yah I think if you are going to ignore Roe then you are a radial anarchist.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I have no idea what you are prattling about, and I doubt you do either. Roe has nothing to do with what I wrote about the Due Process Clauses and the concept of a natural right to life.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

As you have pointed out, it is evident that without the constitution our rights would not exist. Just because our forefathers stated American rights should be considered self evident, does not mean its true. The fact that we need a government to protect those rights; contradicts those rights from being a natural and self evident affect.

I didn't point out any such thing, because it is nonsense. No one who understands constitutional law would embarrass himself by asserting it. The Supreme Court has made clear that some of our fundamental rights predate the Constitution and in no way depend upon it for their existence. For example, it noted that about the right to keep and bear arms in Cruikshank in the 1870's and reaffirmed it in Heller in 2008. The Court also views the rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments as predating the Constitution, as it noted in Heller.

This topic is like a specialized flypaper for leftists. They also give away their totalitarian bent when they push the notion that the individual holds rights only at the pleasure of his government. For them, just as for the 20th-century totalitarians in Italy and Germany, the central government comes first, and the individual person's duty is to serve it. It's ironic that so many of these dim bulbs choose to call themselves "liberals," because they are the very opposite of liberal.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I didn't point out any such thing, because it is nonsense. No one who understands constitutional law would embarrass himself by asserting it. The Supreme Court has made clear that some of our fundamental rights predate the Constitution and in no way depend upon it for their existence. For example, it noted that about the right to keep and bear arms in Cruikshank in the 1870's and reaffirmed it in Heller in 2008. The Court also views the rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments as predating the Constitution, as it noted in Heller.

This topic is like a specialized flypaper for leftists. They also give away their totalitarian bent when they push the notion that the individual holds rights only at the pleasure of his government. For them, just as for the 20th-century totalitarians in Italy and Germany, the central government comes first, and the individual person's duty is to serve it. It's ironic that so many of these dim bulbs choose to call themselves "liberals," because they are the very opposite of liberal.

Attacking imaginary leftists does not prove the existence of something called natural rights. It is a man-made concept, not a scientific discovery. The concept of natural rights may make you believe there is something outside of man that gives rights authority, but reality proves otherwise. The concept of religion also claims certain "truths" about man but likewise was not discovered, but created by man. A concept is only as powerful as the belief mankind has in it. Outside of this belief, it does not exist.

 

[Pozessed]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I didn't point out any such thing, because it is nonsense. No one who understands constitutional law would embarrass himself by asserting it. The Supreme Court has made clear that some of our fundamental rights predate the Constitution and in no way depend upon it for their existence. For example, it noted that about the right to keep and bear arms in Cruikshank in the 1870's and reaffirmed it in Heller in 2008. The Court also views the rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments as predating the Constitution, as it noted in Heller.

This topic is like a specialized flypaper for leftists. They also give away their totalitarian bent when they push the notion that the individual holds rights only at the pleasure of his government. For them, just as for the 20th-century totalitarians in Italy and Germany, the central government comes first, and the individual person's duty is to serve it. It's ironic that so many of these dim bulbs choose to call themselves "liberals," because they are the very opposite of liberal.

"all persons in this country will have a legally enforceable right to life."

If it was natural as you claim, it wouldn't need to be enforced.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Attacking imaginary leftists does not prove the existence of something called natural rights. It is a man-made concept, not a scientific discovery. The concept of natural rights may make you believe there is something outside of man that gives rights authority, but reality proves otherwise. The concept of religion also claims certain "truths" about man but likewise was not discovered, but created by man. A concept is only as powerful as the belief mankind has in it. Outside of this belief, it does not exist.

Proving their existence doesn't interest me. I'm not about to try to reprise the arguments from Locke's Treatises on Government here. It's enough to note that laws in America have from the beginning reflected his views, recognizing certain rights as each individual's natural inheritance rather than grants by government. Because the Constitution incorporates that view, it prohibits government from restricting these rights without compelling reasons.

Philosophical musings about whether natural rights exist don't cut any ice. What counts is that our Constitution assumes they DO exist. If that irks the proponents of an all-powerful central government, they can try to amend the Constitution, or move to some other country more to their taste.

 

[jet57]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I dated a lady who was from the Great White North and before she would let us have carnal knowledge together she wanted to make sure I am Aryan.

Fortunately I have an Aryan name.

Fortunately I am 88% Aryan.

12% is Keltic Scottish.

You know that Aryan and white people stuff is load of crap right?

 

[TobyOne]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

This may be the most bizarre thing I've ever read.

If these rights were natural, they would be universal. Nature has not separated human life from animals and plants life so distinctly that animals and plants would have more rights than us. Do animals and plants have these so-called natural rights too? If not, why not? If truly they are natural (universal) rights, they should be inherited by all living things not only humans.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Proving their existence doesn't interest me. I'm not about to try to reprise the arguments from Locke's Treatises on Government here. It's enough to note that laws in America have from the beginning reflected his views, recognizing certain rights as each individual's natural inheritance rather than grants by government. Because the Constitution incorporates that view, it prohibits government from restricting these rights without compelling reasons.

Philosophical musings about whether natural rights exist don't cut any ice. What counts is that our Constitution assumes they DO exist. If that irks the proponents of an all-powerful central government, they can try to amend the Constitution, or move to some other country more to their taste.

But it brings up the question of just what these natural rights are, even if we make the assumption. Are they only limited to what Locke stated? Can they be expanded? If the Constitution only assumes them and does not state them explicitly it leaves it up to individual interpretation. The laws in America reflect much more than Lockes' views. There is a long history of English common law as well which had great influence on American law.

And this has nothing to do with your imaginary proponents of strong central government. That is your strawman. Those who argue against the validity of the concept of natural law are not automatically in favor of strong central government.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Those who argue against the validity of the concept of natural law are not automatically in favor of strong central government.

There is always the outlier, and you may well be one. But from what I've seen on sites like this one over the years, almost everyone who argues vehemently against the concept of natural rights is a leftist of some stripe. I've seen these fake liberals--they are the very opposite of liberal--in action on several threads here this year. And the reason they dislike the idea of natural rights is that they would like to see us all hold our rights at the pleasure of the federal government. They want this government to have the very kind of concentrated power which belongs in a dictatorship, and which the Constitution was so carefully designed to prevent.

The notion that the U.S. government grants us our rights and can just as easily take them away, if we don't do thus and so, is profoundly undemocratic and un-American. It's also a gross misstatement of constitutional law. It's basic that the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, is a "charter of negative liberties." It is not a positive grant of rights, but rather forbids government from depriving us of rights we are assumed to have from birth.

Of course Locke is not the only source of American law, or even the main one. You're right that our laws are based on English common law. The concept of due process, for example, can be traced all the way back to Magna Carta. Even so, Locke's arguments about natural law in his two Treatises on Government were well known to the men who founded this country and had a strong influence on them. The Declaration of Independence may be the most powerful statement of natural rights ever made, and the most famous part of it shows the effect Locke's ideas had had on Jefferson:

"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 to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."

Locke spoke of life, liberty and property as unalienable rights we have from birth, and Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" ("happiness" being used in the sense, more common at that time, of prosperity or good fortune--wealth.) The word "property" was returned to the three-part formulation in the Fifth Amendment fifteen years later. When Locke argued in 1690 that we have certain inherent, sacrosanct rights from birth, he was arguing largely against the concept of the divine right of kings. Decades later, that must have struck a note with Americans who felt they were being abused by a king. In the new concept, the "just powers" of government derived from the governed themselves, not from any monarch, and the purpose of this government was to secure rights people already had.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

There is always the outlier, and you may well be one. But from what I've seen on sites like this one over the years, almost everyone who argues vehemently against the concept of natural rights is a leftist of some stripe. I've seen these fake liberals--they are the very opposite of liberal--in action on several threads here this year. And the reason they dislike the idea of natural rights is that they would like to see us all hold our rights at the pleasure of the federal government. They want this government to have the very kind of concentrated power which belongs in a dictatorship, and which the Constitution was so carefully designed to prevent.

I'm nowhere remotely close to the left and I think natural rights is nonsense. It simply is not rationally defensible. Instead, what I see, is a strong emotional attachment to the idea of natural rights with no actual evidence that said rights exist in the real world. And, of course, a lot of natural rights advocates do exactly what you do, and assume that the reason people reject the idea isn't because there is no reason to take it seriously, but because they automatically want something nefarious.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Rights come from the very hard work and sacrifice of people who give their blood, sweat and even lives to win them. We should never forget that. The idea that rights were magically given to us from gods floating in the ether dispensing them like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers in October is an insult to the actual process and people who won them for us.

The concept of natural rights was a bridge designed to take us from the mindset of Divine Right of Kings to todays modern view of self determination of the will of the people. It was a contrivance and construct which allowed people to make the transition. The idea being that God wanted the King to rule was replaced by God wanted us (perhaps some of us) to have certain rights and he gave them to us.

Three hundred plus years later we no longer need that mental crutch.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I'm nowhere remotely close to the left and I think natural rights is nonsense. It simply is not rationally defensible. Instead, what I see, is a strong emotional attachment to the idea of natural rights with no actual evidence that said rights exist in the real world. And, of course, a lot of natural rights advocates do exactly what you do, and assume that the reason people reject the idea isn't because there is no reason to take it seriously, but because they automatically want something nefarious.

I said earlier that I am not interested in debating the merits of Hobbes' or Locke's or anyone else's arguments for the existence of natural rights. Their merits were weighed by the men who founded this country, and they are the basis of the liberal political philosophy of individual rights and limited government our constitution incorporates. That ends the matter for me.

What do you propose to do about your belief that the concept of natural rights is nonsense? Ignore the Constitution, because you can't take it seriously? That's exactly what most statists would like to do. The idea that individual rights are granted by government, and therefore exist only at the pleasure of some government entity, is very dangerous. What government gives, it may also take away.

 

[Russell797]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Natural rights? A hungry lion couldn't care less about the natural rights you may think you have. Rights are something humans confer to humanity. There are no rights within the natural order of things, you sustain yourself so long as you have the strength and ability to do so in nature. Survival of the fittest.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I said earlier that I am not interested in debating the merits of Hobbes' or Locke's or anyone else's arguments for the existence of natural rights. Their merits were weighed by the men who founded this country, and they are the basis of the liberal political philosophy of individual rights and limited government our constitution incorporates. That ends the matter for me.

Neither do I. I don't care about debating philosophy, I care about debating the people on this forum who are making these claims, but the second that I ask them to back up their claims with something substantial, you realize they have nothing. It doesn't matter who believes a thing, it only matters if that thing is true. It was weighed by many people who believed that the earth was the center of the universe or that the earth was flat and all of those people were wrong. Argumentum ad populum and the appeal to authority are fallacies for a reason. It doesn't matter who believes a thing, only if that thing can be demonstrated by its adherents to be factually and demonstrably true. And in the case of natural rights, you've got nothing.

What do you propose to do about your belief that the concept of natural rights is nonsense? Ignore the Constitution, because you can't take it seriously? That's exactly what most statists would like to do. The idea that individual rights are granted by government, and therefore exist only at the pleasure of some government entity, is very dangerous. What government gives, it may also take away.

The Constitution is a document. It isn't magic. Reading the Constitution isn't like casting a magical spell. It's just a document, written by men. It has some really good ideas in it but it is far from perfect. You are engaged in magical thinking and founding father worship, both of which are irrational. And nobody rational says that rights are granted by the government, rights come from the people, from societal consensus. The government likewise comes from societal consensus. The government isn't some big bad monster that's been imposed on you, it was put there by the people, for the people and if the people aren't responsible for their creation, it can get out of control, as we both agree that it has. But that doesn't abrogate the responsibility of the people to get it under control again.

The problem comes in when you think that you know better than everyone else and when everyone else does things that you don't personally like, you turn to absurd ideas like natural law to prove that you were actually right all along. It's the same reason people point to religion, their ideas can't win in the popular arena so they appeal to some unseen and unproven "authority" as a trump card. "I'm right because I've got this god on my side!" "I'm right because I've got these natural rights on my side!" But neither are actually defensible. They're based on blind faith, not demonstrable fact. And when people point this out, the adherent does what you're doing, clenches their fists and says "I don't have to prove anything that I'm saying is right, but I am, so there!"

Yeah, that's going to impress anyone. Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Quag]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

If someone claims there are natural rights then the onus is upon them to provide proof of the claims.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

The Constitution is a document. It isn't magic. Reading the Constitution isn't like casting a magical spell. It's just a document, written by men. It has some really good ideas in it but it is far from perfect. You are engaged in magical thinking and founding father worship, both of which are irrational.

The Constitution is the highest law in this country. It is based on the concept of natural rights. Whether those facts peeve you is irrelevant. I am glad to see you make your disdain for the Constitution so clear.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

The belief that rights are not natural, but are instead granted and guaranteed by government, comes from the observation that government can oppress or support such rights more effectively than the individual can themseleves. That group action is usually more effective than individual action. That it does no good to claim a right to life when the government can kill you, a right to free expression when the government can muzzle you, or a right to free association when the government can imprison you. It therefore follows that the only rights an individual can have are those rights granted and protected by government.

Yet if every government on the planet ceased to exist, one would still have natural rights amply demonstrated by individual existence in a state of nature. This is why Jefferson wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence.

An individual's right to life is not a right not to die. It is demonstrated by the individual struggle to maintain existence. The individual's capability to succeed does not matter; the simple fact that every living thing acts in self-defense is the proof.

An individual's right to free expression is not limited by the ability to speak. It is evidenced by any ability to express onseself even if one's tounge were cut out or one's hands were cut off. This is also amply demonstrated by just about every living thing in a state of nature.

Some people have argued that these are merely abilities, claiming that the exercise of abilities has nothing to do with innate rights. But it is the choice in use of such abilities that exemplifies rights, the choice to speak rather than not; whether to fight, to run, or to sacrifice oneself or not; the choice to oppose oppression and stand up for oneself whether successful or not.

None of this depends on the power of government, which is the power of the group used for or against the individual. It all depends on the will of the individual himself.

 

[Fletch]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

I'm nowhere remotely close to the left and I think natural rights is nonsense. It simply is not rationally defensible. Instead, what I see, is a strong emotional attachment to the idea of natural rights with no actual evidence that said rights exist in the real world.

Depends upon how you look at it. Natural rights answers the question: what is right for man to live as man? That, of course, requires an understanding of what type of creature man is. No one asks what is right for a dog to live as a dog. Why? Because nature has predetermined a dogs behavior by encoding it with instinct. But man is not instinctive but volitional and rational. How does man survive? By reason and his own will. That is how nature has designed him. It is right, therefore, for a rational creature with a volitional will and a rational mind to use the will and use that reason in the furtherance of his own life. Nature has created man with a life of his own, a mind of his own and a will of his own and his survival, as man, requires that he use them. It is right, therefore that he does and be free to do so. That is premise behind the concept of natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And, of course, a lot of natural rights advocates do exactly what you do, and assume that the reason people reject the idea isn't because there is no reason to take it seriously, but because they automatically want something nefarious.

They may not want something nefarious, but they will surely get something nefarious. Strip away natural rights from man and you strip away any concept of objective morality with them. Murder, for example, is no longer a moral crime because no man had any right to life in the first place. Murder may be something we don't like and make laws to prohibit, but the act itself ceases to be immoral. Finally, rights are going to exist whether you like it or not. They will either belong to the individual or they will belong to the state, the Fuhrer, the dictator, or the thug. Either right makes might or might will make right. You are on the wrong side of that equation.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

The Constitution is the highest law in this country. It is based on the concept of natural rights. Whether those facts peeve you is irrelevant. I am glad to see you make your disdain for the Constitution so clear.

And your abject worship of a document, rather than just acknowledging reality, is downright pathetic.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Do natural rights exist?

Depends upon how you look at it. Natural rights answers the question: what is right for man to live as man? That, of course, requires an understanding of what type of creature man is. No one asks what is right for a dog to live as a dog. Why? Because nature has predetermined a dogs behavior by encoding it with instinct. But man is not instinctive but volitional and rational. How does man survive? By reason and his own will. That is how nature has designed him. It is right, therefore, for a rational creature with a volitional will and a rational mind to use the will and use that reason in the furtherance of his own life. Nature has created man with a life of his own, a mind of his own and a will of his own and his survival, as man, requires that he use them. It is right, therefore that he does and be free to do so. That is premise behind the concept of natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No, that's completely subjective. Right and wrong are subjective. What you might think is right, someone else might think is wrong and there isn't any way to determine factual correctness between the two sides. All the way through this, you're just making assertions. Here's what man is, here's what man likes, but really, you're just giving your personal opinion and assuming that your opinion is factually true. You're certainly welcome to have those opinions, but when you start insisting that reality is only valid if it reflects those opinions, that's when you've taken a hard left at Albuquerque.

They may not want something nefarious, but they will surely get something nefarious. Strip away natural rights from man and you strip away any concept of objective morality with them. Murder, for example, is no longer a moral crime because no man had any right to life in the first place. Murder may be something we don't like and make laws to prohibit, but the act itself ceases to be immoral. Finally, rights are going to exist whether you like it or not. They will either belong to the individual or they will belong to the state, the Fuhrer, the dictator, or the thug. Either right makes might or might will make right. You are on the wrong side of that equation.

No, they'll just get something you don't like. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it something you don't like. There is a difference. But instead of acknowledging that we live in a nation of ideas and the most popular ideas win, for the most part, I see libertarians playing this like it's some weird conspiracy theory, that people are brainwashed to do things other than the clearly superior and absolutely correct libertarian ideas. Instead of just saying "we have ideas, those ideas are not popular and therefore those ideas are unlikely to make it into law", I see libertarians pretending that their ideas are magically correct and true and anyone who doesn't follow them has something wrong with them.

And there are no "moral crimes". There are just crimes. Murder is illegal because the majority of people within society deem it to be an unacceptable action and therefore our laws reflect said social disapproval. But what a lot of people want are rules that never change, that never need to be thought about because they are automatically right or automatically wrong regardless. This is an unrealistic way of looking at reality. There are no unchanging standards. There are no imaginary men in the sky that hand down moral precepts. Things change. History proves unerringly that this is true. Just because it doesn't make you feel good to think that things change over time doesn't stop reality from working that way. You can play the "I'm right, so there!" game all you want, you can hold your breath until you turn blue, but reality always wins out in the end and reality doesn't give a damn if you're happy about it or not.