The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

Right to life is about the only Natural right that exists.
But that is good if some enforcing mechanism enforces that or Might makes on keep on living if another decides to take your right to life.
But most all humans and all creatures will fight to keep living.

Nature has given many creatures special features to hide or kill others in an effort to keep life. So, that occurs in Nature.

What else occurs in Nature?

 

Just fyi - I made changes to my post 150 after you "liked" it!

 

Notice how you are unable to show where
they are written, where they came from, who gave them to us or where they exist in nature? I noticed that too

 

Thanks for the heads up.
I will keep the like on your post.

 

yes inherent rights AND the ability for we the people to protect and defend those rights.
That is the meaning of shall not be infringed.

No one can take your 'right' to life.
They can violate your right to life and take your life but they cannot take your 'right' to life, we try murders without the victim because their right stands eternal.

BoR, its organic law, like I said its impossible to show or demonstrate anything to you that you disagree with because you refuse to read anything given to you to the contrary.

 

Notice how you still can’t show us where they are written, where they came from, who gave them to us or where they exist in nature? I noticed too. This is because it’s a philosophical construct that does not exist outside of that.

 

Our founders were fine with having the death penalty - the denial of what you call the most fundamental right. They were fine with slavery, too. They absolutely did NOT see our constitution as a repository for some favorite settlement of rights philosophy.

Our founding documents are documents of government. Our founders selected rights that were important to them at the time. They waved hands at them being fundamental, so that justification isn't required, as they knew they couldn't turn our constitution into a work of philosophy on rights, nor would a debate on the topic be timely.

They also knew that a defense of rights wasn't really necessary, as it was a long English principle that property was the root of being a citizen, of having representation, of having any standing at all. So, when our documents referenced property as a right worthy of revolution, they knew England couldn't object. Taxation without representation was denial of citizenship. It was game over. Nobody had to go read the philosophers.


They and the British believed representation was worth war, not merely law. It was something worthy of revolution - more important than law.

Today, that most fundamental right is under assault all across America.

Yet today the GOP demands we IGNORE the loss of life, liberty and happiness due to guns while leading an ASSAULT on representation.

 

5 times aint enough?

The nature of man.

They are inherent in man, its not s birthday present ffs
QUOTE="rahl, post: 1072562264, member: 47629"]where they exist in nature[/QUOTE]
in man

I gave you an absolute undeniable means to test and PROVE your claim why havent you done it yet?

 

in man

I gave you an absolute undeniable means to test and PROVE your claim why havent you done it yet?[/QUOTE]
I don't see anywhere that you have identified any philosophy of "natural rights".

 

I don't recall reading anything about them being fine having to death penalty got a citation for that?

I already told you that slavery was the standard way to pay back loans and other debts before loans existed through the banks.

You are confusing slavery with servitude.

of course not the Bill of Rights is a declaration of rights made by the people to express the will of the people not the government.

Bulshit stop watering down our organic law, its memorandum of the contract/agreement between the people and the government.

They expressed the will of the people what is important to the people even today other than you of course because you're more concerned about expressing what's important to the government.

That doesn't even make sense.

Well justification of inherent rights certainly isn't required except for certain obtuse people that are diligently at work trying to rewrite foundational history to destroy the Reserved Rights of the 'People' of American government.

The Bill of Rights is only called Constitution because it was incorporated into the Constitution technically it's not 'the' Constitution.

That's why they fought the revolution right wil

No they merely had to be subjects not citizens.

That's only one part of why the revolution was fought

In America redress of grievances has literally been abolished

that's because everybody understands what inherent rights means but you should really tell that to rahl who claims it came into existence by some philosopher but apparently cant quote them.

That might be the issue most talked about but the fundamental issue was abuses and there are and were several representation being one of them

What representation wil?

guns are a necessity to the protection of life, why do you deny that?

what you think you're represented just because you elect somebody who agrees with one or two things on your agenda that's not ****ing representation.

What was the last amendment we got the vote on?

Hell what was the last law you got to vote on?

oh wait that's right I forgot we're in America our Representatives have crystal balls and soothsayers we don't need referendums or votes.

Our democracy ends the day after election.

Oh wait, we have a democratic scrotomus maximus and our democratic crystal ball reading representatives. I digress.

its not philosophical its empirical.

 

Once dead, you lose all rights. Natural and man made. Semantics.
So if one kills you, you life is gone and so is the right.

 

So you have no right to see that your last will and testament is adhered to?

Like I said, natural in so far as the bor is concerned, today unfortunately leaning toward manufactured moreso every day as rights are being added that are in fact man made, education is man made, life liberty and pusuit of happiness, protection speech arms etc are not manufactured but inherent to the right and protection of said right thereof.

Not at all, not even in the broadest sense.

the violation of your right occurred during life the defense of your right takes place after death, yes.

 

in man

I gave you an absolute undeniable means to test and PROVE your claim why havent you done it yet?[/QUOTE]
Notice how you couldn’t demonstrate where they are written, where they came from, who gave them to us or where they exist in nature?

 

Not as a Natural right. That's a man made right, more accurately a law.
How are those other rights nothing more than man made rights. They are not Natural in any way shape or form.

The defense of your right is man made and after the fact of the Natural right to life has been taken.

 

for the 6th time:
demonstrate where they are written,
BoR
where they came from,
Nature
who gave them to us
Ancient Man
or where they exist in nature?
Humans

R2L is a natural right, later coded as law.

education and jobs are not natural rights

defending someone after they are dead is a function of law, yes man made, does not change the fact R2L is a natural right you already agreed to that.

 

I agree. So, as noted, when government does start taking an active role in what speech, which assemblies, etc, it is acting tyrannical. so, you agree. Awesome.

 

Hmm.. I'd say your comment was entirely disabused. Sorry you cannot see that for yourself.

 

those are constitutional amendments, not where these natural rights are written.

they do not exist in nature, which is why you can't demonstrate it.

who gave them to ancient man?

They don't exist in humans. They exist as a legal and philosophical construct.

you can not demonstrate this to be true, other than codified into law.

correct, as natural rights do not exist outside a philosophical construct.

as we have established, natural rights do not exist outside of the law or philosophical constructs.

 

Nope I just looked at the bill of rights, they are definitely written, in English too.
So in rahl land written is not really written?
Most likely by definition I suppose?

 

That seems to be the consensus.

I didn't leave it out - I think it is implicit in the establishment and perpetuation of that hybrid system.

No, I did not go astray, but it looks like you just did.

There is no right, natural or otherwise, the permits you to commit violence in order to obtain "fair compensation for work". You do, however, have a right to leave a job that pays you below what you believe is fair and seek a job that pays you what you believe is fair.

Mistakenly so.

"You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones....."

Evidently, you don't realize that it was our effort to alleviate poverty that is largely responsible for the rise in gun violence we've seen over the past several decades, which also happens to correspond to the time our Great Society and War on Poverty programs were enacted, and we've spent over $20 trillion to implement and maintain.

Some people, even members of the party who pushed these programs and refuse to reform them saw this coming upon their passage:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.
--Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), 1965

Most of the gun violence in this country is a symptom of the disastrous unintended consequences of our social welfare programs and as the old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Not only did the architects of these programs marginalize fathers and disrupt the traditional family, they artificially created a welfare class that our economy could not organically support, so many wind up getting involved in the crime and gangs that are responsible for most of our gun violence.

What do you propose to do about this?

The 20th Century proved in the most painful way possible that Socialism isn't the answer, and we're seeing that repeat itself in Venezuela where the Stalinists in that country utterly destroyed its economy, impoverished even more people and prompted 4.6 million people to flee to other countries for freedom and opportunity.

 

In other words, by nature or human nature, which would include the characteristics or attributes or faculties you mentioned - reason, moral discernment, free will, etc.

Thanks for clarifying - that was difficult to discern within the comments surrounding it.

Agreed.

 

LMAO!!!

That's exactly where they are WRITTEN - in our Constitution - amongst other places.

Now, if you're arguing that the COTUS/BoR is not the source of our natural rights, you should have said so. The COTUS/BoR is just where they are written - they are not the source.

 

Yep, definitely written....in English.....sitting in the National Archives....in writing.....

 

Any right that needs to be coded in/by law is man made.

And I see you just like to repeat the same circular points. Have fun.

 

If rights have to be written by man, then they are man made rights. From the git go.