The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

but we both know you did not, because you can not. You can not show us where these natural rights are written, where they come from, who gave them to us etc. This is because they do not exist outside of that philosophical construct.

correct. I and others have demonstrated natural rights do not exist outside of a philosophical construct.

 

Actually, it originated from the study of legal sources by jurists at the University of Bologna, as I pointed out in the OP.

It also emerged during the ferment of the insurrections in the towns where people were asserting their natural rights against the feudal overlords who shared your opinion that those rights didn't exist so they were free to violate them as they saw fit. After all, they didn't have the rights to life, self-defense, property. etc., etc...

 

That's a little bit of a disingenuous semantics argument. It depends exactly what that "due process" is, and what the relevant laws are, doesn't it?

I've started all sorts of threads here (Law & Justice section) about prosecutors and judges that wield existing laws in abusive ways.

Vague notions of "due process" do not automatically secure our rights.

 

You are only telling me the inspiration for people believing in natural rights. Legal studies and oppressed surfs. I agree with your post completely. I'm just saying its faith based because there is no real evidence for it. This supports a religious origin which supports your post even more.

Feudal lords did believe in rights. They believed in the divine right of kings outlined in Romans 13 of the bible. Religious books are really good at dictating these arbitrary rights that people follow without question.

 

I clearly recall proving you wrong because I can and I did, just as I clearly recall showing you where our natural rights are written and how our nation, constitution and legal system are founded on the existence and preservation of the individual natural rights that we all possess and our government is obligated to uphold.

You've demonstrated nothing, actually.

By the way, if you haven't taken the time and opportunity to read Post #9 I hope you do so. Enjoy.

 

and knowing full well that you didn't and can't, your statement above is an intentional falsehood.

.as you are aware, I pointed out that rights do not exist outside of human philosophical constructs. It's why you can't show us where these rights are written, come from, or exist outside of this.

read it. reality remains. rights do not exist outside of a human philosophical construct.

 

And yet that still doesn't change the fact that rights don't exist without some form of government that codifies and enforces them. Try going somewhere that doesn't have that and insisting you have natural rights. Let us know how that works out for you.

The idea that we all have these inherent rights is certainly an inspiration, but that's it. It does nothing without human action. Even God is powerless to will rights into existence. He must rely on the same human systems to create and enforce them as the rest of us do.

 

That's not how it works. The idea that we have natural rights might have been an inspiration, but on it's own it does nothing. You have no rights whatsoever that human social and government systems have not created and do not enforce. When this country was created, the rights we are given by the Constitution did not exist as rights in the United States until we created them. The government is not upholding natural rights, they are upholding the rights our founding fathers codified into law. Prior to that codification, those rights existed only as an idea, they had no tangible form because they had no tangible authority behind them. God certainly wasn't enforcing them, and never has.

 

That is why the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights. Anything else is secondary. We have a bill of rights which are "natural rights". They shall not be infringed. Government just strays .....corrupt human nature.

 

I know full well that I did and I can which makes your statement an intentional falsehood.

As I am, aware you made a claim that you did not support and cannot support. I have also demonstrated to you both in this thread where those rights are written and it has also been demonstrated where they come from.

Indeed, reality remains, but your assumption does not - it died in the 12th and 13th Centuries and was buried by William of Ockham during the Franciscan poverty controversy.

Read this: the entire premise of your argument is erroneous and fallacious because it is based on an assumption that was dispelled over six centuries ago - that government is the only thing that possesses power. Not only was that demonstrated to be false, but Ockham went on the demonstrate that government, be it secular or religious, possesses no power at all. The government's power is possessed by and derived from the individual and the association of individuals that has been alternately referred to as "the People", the "Body of Christ", etc.. It is from that fact that Ockham developed the social contract theory that Hobbes and Locke have been credited with formulating. Furthermore, the jurists who dispensed with you ancient, debunked assumption didn't just pluck their ideas out of the thin air as I ever so briefly pointed out in the OP and Brian Tierney demonstrates at length in his books and essays, they were derived from their studies of the Corpus Juris Civilis and the Concordia discordantium canonum and the various meaning and usages of the languages in those texts (ius, ius naturale, domininium, etc.).

I've spent all the time I'm willing to expend on refuting your argument again, so you'll have to pardon me for moving on to other people's posts...

 

Meanwhile, reality remains the same. Natural rights don’t exist outside of philosophical constructs. Which is why you can’t show us where these rights are written, or come from, or where they actually exist in nature.

 

This points to the issue of rights being tied to philosophy on the requirements necessary for a successful government.

Once we think democracy is important, it becomes clear that we need rights of speech and representation.

After experiencing the problems of having a national religion and religious involvement in government, it becomes clear that we need government and religion to be separate.

Etc.

 

Actually, I told you the sources from which natural rights were formulated. Inspiration is a different matter, but we can get into that, too.

The townspeople were not serfs. They did not live on feudal manors and neither the lords nor townsfolk were bound to the manorial duties and obligations of service to one another which is one of the main reasons why those insurrections occurred.

I'm not sure we agree on much of anything here, Distraff. Please refer to Post #35 above.

It would be more accurate and appropriate in our modern interpretation of the terms to say feudal lords believed in duties, not rights. They had no compunction whatsoever to wantonly violate rights they did not recognize.

 

Meanwhile you remain wrong.

 

RE: The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights
SUBTOPIC: Rights and Obligations
⁜→ Talon. et al,

PREFACE: A Layman's perspective.

(COMMENT)

My Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) was just my first impression on the application between "Natural" Law and Legislative and Constitutional Law (non-Natural Law). I'm realizing I may be dating myself here, but what can I say?

Wikipedia​

When I was speaking of "Power" and "Influence" - I was speaking of the fear in that the consequence would be the judiciary expanding its powers, → "creating" rights rather than "interpreting" the Constitution.

(COMMENT)

While different cultures (the 139 member nation in the UN plus the unaligned nations and subcultures) may contribute to the initialization of various legal systems, in America, in reality, the political system is dominated by political parties; which are, in turn, heavily influenced by support from Special Interest Groups and Political Action Committees.

(COMMENT)

(Embedded Personal Opinion) I'm not sure that ecclesiastical laws (perpetuated by canonists and decretists of the 12th and 13th Centuries) had any positive impact on humanity. It did nothing to reduce serfdom, indentured servants/laborers, and peonage over more than eight centuries; although forms of slavery in differing degrees inhibited personal sovereignty (freedom and human property) for nearly three millennia.

 

Notice how you keep not being able to show a where these rights are written, where they came from and where they exist in nature? I noticed that too.

 

I read your posts again and all they do is explain the historical origin behind the belief in natural rights. They don't really address the evidence at all. I agree with you on the historical origins, not so much on the evidence.

Actually the divine right of kings was a very common belief thanks to being very explicitly stated in the bible. The bible is very clear that people should obey their rulers.

 

you dont know? Right to life: Try choking someone to death that has a gun pointed between your eyes. Thats where its written. Inherent right to life. Nothing philosophical about it

 

So you can’t show where it’s written, where they come from or where they exist in nature either? Lol

 

It's only almost that simple.

Isn't it more of an issue of when it is right to NOT obey rulers?

Paul refused to obey the rule of Rome. Was that wrong?

Was Martin Luther wrong?

Were those in Germany who risked opposing Hitler wrong?

Is it wrong today for Palestinians living in West Bank under the government of Israel to attempt to defend their property against the bulldozers of Israel?

 

I just did, take the blinders off

 

here we go with this **** again, they voted for hitler

 

You showed they exist the same way you disproved Einstein lol

 

Many followed the law of Hitler's government.

But, that is not the issue here.

 

yes physical empirical demonstration.

try choking 1000 people to death with loaded guns and you will wind up with 1000 slugs in your head. I dont think inherent rights can be much clearer, at least to rational people. Philosophy not required, just ammo.

Id say by anyones standards but yours of course thats pretty damn assuredly an inherent right.

understanding einee is over your head, you proved that. too.