The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

The above explains the emphasis on "apprehending the divine" in your posts.

I'm an atheist, I lack belief in gods, divine, supernatural.

Our beliefs, our subjective experiences, are very relevant, being the basic premises for our arguments and conclusions. You, for instance, believe that the divine is real, while the idea of natural inherent rights is a delusion. I believe the opposite. One's subjective experience is the other's objective reality.

Appeal to the divine effectively ends the debate, because it can justify anything, no matter how impossible, improbable, or ludicrous.

 

and your point of course is proven by all the people who commit suicide.

There are about 4 names with nearly identical ataxic cpd posting patterns, a condition which is impossible to debate.

The will to survive is not universally and certainly not objectively eternal.

 

So the will to live - as an expression of the natural and inherent survival instinct in all creatures - is subject to experience; yet the instinct itself is inherent and eternal.

Now we are nailing down what exactly IS inherent in nature: and it certainly isn't constructed "rights" which are based on the construct of 'individual sovereignty', which is impossible if there is more than one individual in the world, all of whom have their own survival instinct.

The inference (from suicide) being that an inherent "right"** to life can be be voluntarily forfeited by an individual.
But natural inherent survival instincts can't be forfeited.

**"rights" being a human construct, since chimps don't concern themselves with "rights".

Maybe so, but the ideas presented here ARE possible to debate. Sorry, you can't hide behind that proposition.... .

Addressed above; the survival instinct IS eternal and objective.

 

Not so fast: unfortunately for you, I said "perhaps".

But even you (...I presume....) can be excited, thrilled, and awestruck by our world - an infinite universe which can be experienced by all humans, but understood by none of us.

[That's why even the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, can be said to be a 'believer', when he says he beholds the physical universe in "wonder"].

So, I'm afraid you need to resume the debate or concede it; have a go at assisting kokomojojo who is struggling to find a way out as well.

But to your post in detail:

QUOTE]Our beliefs, our subjective experiences, are very relevant, being the basic premises for our arguments and conclusions. You, for instance, believe that the divine is real, while the idea of natural inherent rights is a delusion. I believe the opposite. One's subjective experience is the other's objective reality.[/QUOTE]

I don't "believe" the divine is real: I KNOW that the universe is awe-inspiring, a point which artists have been at pains to express down through the ages.

I also know that survival instincts are inherent and eternal in biological nature.

I contend the idea of 'individual sovereignty' - on which the concept of 'inherent individual rights' is based, is delusional if there is more than one individual in the world, because individuals posses self-interested competitive survival instincts.

Like I said, Dawkins and you and all humans are in awe of the universe - whose existence IS objective reality (though the individual's experience of this universal objective reality is subjective, as you say).

So the correct statement is : one's subjective experience of objective reality may differ from the other's subjective experience of objective reality.

But inherent natural survival instincts, like the existence of the universe itself, are observable objective reality.

Which is why you entered the debate saying the idea of "natural inherent rights " is a human construct, because such "rights' are not observable in nature.

Meanwhile, what are we going to do about the ongoing slaughter of children in warfare?

I suggest creation of an international rules-based system...

 

Its insanity to claim the model is the thing in and of itself therefore a mere construct then in the same breath claim its not. Therefore by that twisted nutterville logic that you described earlier instinct also has to be a construct.

You run out of places to move the goal posts.

It painfully obvious you are merely using this argument to veil beating your commie drum and it does not matter how convoluted your posts get as long as it gives you the opportunity to spam for your global commie overlord state.

and now claiming to know what chimps think about, ok then.......that speaks volumes!

 

we have that already and it has proven not to work.

you cant even get it to work on the local level

Ex-Luzerne County judge at center of 'kids for cash' jail scandal loses bid for lighter prison sentence

Torsten Ove
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
tove@post-gazette.com
Aug 26, 2020 9:42 AM

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld the 28-year sentence imposed in 2011 on the former president judge in Luzerne County, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., for orchestrating a kickback scheme involving for-profit juvenile detention centers.

Ciavarella was at the heart of what became known as the "kids-for-cash" scandal in which he accepted millions of dollars in bribes from the co-owner and builder of two youth centers to remand hundreds of juveniles to those facilities.

 

You are obviously obfuscating to avoid the debate.
eg,

Specifically: biological life directed by competitive survival instincts in all creatures. is objective natural reality, ie, neither a model, nor a construct, but a description of objective reality.

??? I can only restate the above.

Be specific: what logic did I use/describe earlier?

Meanwhile I have always described the natural survival instinct as objective natural reality, by observation; and "inherent natural rights" as the false human construct mistakenly derived from objective reality, and mistakenly equated with it.

To conclude, nature gives (not) two hoots about your "right" to life, nature DOES endow all creatures with survival instincts.

No we don't have it, because your individual sovereignty delusion - in this case, the delusion of absolute national sovereignty which is incompatible with an international rules based system - - forced the adoption of the veto onto the permanent members of the UNSC in 1946, during the creation of the UN's charter.

So you think you have "proved" that the rule of law can't work....yet that corrupt judge IS still locked up, proving the rule of law CAN work.

It becomes obvious why you are desperate to construe the false "inherent natural individual rights" construct as objective reality....on behalf of your own self-interest.

OK I'll concede, chimps DO ponder their "natural inherent individual rights" as a basis for their Constitutional arrangements (!)......(but they'll remain as mistaken in those beliefs as you).

 

​

 

its a fact

 

It not surprising the remarkable simplicity of my formulation, namely:

"Nature has endowed all creatures with survival instincts; nature is not concerned with individual inherent "rights".

..has reduced you to blathering, because the observable objective reality of that bolded sentence is irrefutable, and hence destroys the basis of your world view.

So let's stop bleating about "inherent natural rights", and get on with creating human law which makes this world a better place to live in.

 

One and a half hours?

The opening speaker bored me after 2 minutes.....

Can you direct us to specific points in the video relevant to the OP, and especially an argument which supports your proposition that rule of law is unworkable?

Thank you.

 

His take away point confirms it, perhaps english is not your primary language and you need someone to read to you and explain what it means? Would that help?

It took 2:45 seconds to read his accreditations and awards for brilliance on rights and guv policies! Where are yours?
I cant imagine you listening to facts, hell you have ignored them throughout this whole thread.

Yes, start at the 2:46 mark....forward.

 

That "individual inherent rights" are objective, or natural reality? Which you have ceased debating, but at least you are not still blathering...

Well I love facts rather than observably false constructs like the idea of "inherent natural individual rights" which nature obviously doesn't give two hoots about, by observation....

So I'll give it a go, from 2.46...I'm intrigued, because I respect Chomsky greatly (while I note you haven't dared point me to the spot where law is shown to be unworkable...)

 

Good, then I accept your concessions.

 

To do justice to Chomsky's long lecture, I'll stop halfway and make these observations (and continue with the remainder later).
Chomsky's chief thesis is that state power/security does not align to the security of the citizens. Some of his observations:

1. our democracies are plutocracies, not democracies.
2. state power which is aligned to interests of wealthy elites results in a condition which fails to protect the real interests of the whole community eg powerful vested interests resisting necessary climate change policy, which powerful vested fossil interests are bound to resist.
3. US is indifferent to "fair and balanced" critique of other systems, eg Cuba, where the US forced its military bases onto the island a century ago, cf Russian annexation of Crimea which has the large majority support of the local population.

etc etc etc.

At only one point (up to the halfway mark) does Chomsky refer to the "rights of nature" which he says are necessary to counteract such abuses of state power, as enumerated previously by him, in his long left-wing harangue against US state policy and US global hegemony. (btw, Chomsky would undoubtedly be pleased by the new US admins. condemnation of illegal** Israeli actions against Palestinians in East Jerusalem).

** illegal under international law, but rejected by Israel with US support, although it seems Biden shares a similar view to Jimmy Carter who labelled Israel an apartheid state, as did the Humans Rights Council recently.

But if you think Chomsky means wealthy powerful individuals have a "right" to repress the less powerful citizens in our plutocracies (his designation of current democracies) by reason of their bought-by-money influence over government policy, because of some notion of inherent rights, you are of course laughably wrong.

Chomsky develops his theme: government needs to protect the security of the state.. ..from whom? His conclusion is unexpected: from the domestic population, by keeping them in the dark re the activities of the "security" agencies like the CIA - whom Chomsky (rightly) despises - with their state "secrets" exposed by the likes of Assange and Snowden.

Chomsky rightly despises the secrecy of the state "security" apparatus, secrecy which the state claims is necessary for its security (as opposed to the security of the citizens: BUT my thought at that point was: has Chomsky mistakenly omitted referring to national security (of the state) in that sentence?

Which brings me to a (for me) remarkable revelation from Chomsky, ie, in 1952 Stalin offered to reunite East Germany to the West, in exchange for a drastic reduction (or elimination of) nuclear weapons....which is what real security is about, ie, freedom from MAD, in Chomsky's estimation.

So therefore Chomsky rightly shows state national sovereignty is incompatible with ANYONE's security....and in my estimation, in the absence of an international rules based system which eliminates war as a means of dispute settlement, which has been my contention all along.

Just as concepts such as "individual sovereignty" and "inherent individual natural rights" cannot achieve security for individuals: "You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones...")

To repeat: nature doesn't give two hoots about "rights", nature will happily stand by and watch us throw nukes at one-another.

I think the above is a fair representation of the first half of Chomsky's lecture.

Let's see what the 2nd half holds.

So...... did you hang your entire argument on these three words from Chomsky, namely: "rights of nature" ?
Seriously? ......three words which he did not explain or refer to again in the entire first half, which turns out to be a LW view of the abuse of populations by the state "security" apparatus in all governments regardless of political persuasion but particularly egregious in the case of global US hegemony.

 

and of course the last thing you would so is find out what your boy chomsky thinks about the laws of nature.

Yes self protecting states (sovereign or otherwise) abuse the indigenous "We The People" that created it!

Yes self protecting states (sovereign or otherwise) abuse the indigenous "We The People" that created it!

False, states, mobs, do not need to be sovereign to wage war against another mob, ie corporations or companies in the language of brits.

Abusive state self protection racket

You were actually doing pretty good up to this point.
He made that statement from the perspective of the state.

you may wish to listen to that again and get the correct context of his argument. Its survival depends on kleptocratic corruption and abuse of the little guys. That is the correct context.

state power trumps the rights of individual sovereigns by force.

What a creatively treacherous way to express your agreement with me.

I am not the one afflicted with or suffering from orwellian CD here, but someone is and this has been proven on several occasions throughout the thread.


Of course your solution is to dissolve the smaller impenetrable mob that is controlled by wealth and replace it with an even greater impenetrable mob that is controlled by wealth.

You miss the whole take away point completely, which can only be obtained through well honed inductive reasoning: money/power corrupts all gubmints.

You cant abolish force or the corrupt monied interests that create it without a lot of bloodshed along the way, simply because their is no connection between those who enjoy it and those who die to protect those who enjoy it.

You failed to post the punchline:
Question: "Mr Chomsky, what can an individual do to fix the problem"
Response: "NOTHING"
Response: "The best the individual can do is form a mob."

You fail to comprehend that the system we live in is built on war, thank you very much UK/Europe for giving us your corrupt monetary heritage by FORCE.

The beat goes on.

 

An international court of justice backed by a UNSC without veto is NOT an "impenetrable mob that is controlled by wealth".

It is a collection of humans with special capacities for abstract thought.

It IS a body dedicated to supporting justice.....which does NOT exist in nature. Chomsky obviously aligns his "rights in nature" to the concept of justice (see below), as opposed to the inter (and intra) -species arms race that exists in nature.

As I have pointed out, nature is NOT concerned with justice, nature has endowed all life with survival instincts, which is all that nature is required to do. OTOH, the task of Man IS to concern himself - as a species - with the implementation of justice, in order to avoid the destruction of the planet's biodiversity which will result if each one of us is free to attempt to follow his own instincts and desires....

Thank you for summarizing Chomsky's views on "natural rights", namely:

"Its what our 'nature' tells us"
"Infants understand whats fair and unfair."
"We can try to figure out what it is" [ie, natural law]
"I think its one of those things we cannot penetrate"

Which explains his cursory reference to "rights of nature" in the first video in which he exposes his thesis that governments invariably concern themselves with the security of the state, not the security of the citizens which is the rightful task of government.

Consider the underlined (Chomsky's last point): the concept of "natural tights" is impenetrable BECAUSE the concept resides not in nature - which doesn't give two hoots about "justice", or "fairness" (which even infants understand....) but in the cerebral cortex of homo sapiens, which is why "Its what our 'nature' tells us" ie, as a consequence of our capacity for abstract thought as opposed to behaviour directed by instinct alone...eg manifested by a child claiming the greater proportion for himself.

Sorry to bring you back to objective reality, using Chomsky' own words.

 

FALSE!

Chomsky said it IS nature: "psychologists have found infants instinctively know whats fair and unfair."

Now you have stooped to FALSELY quoting chomsky!

His intended meaning is that its impenetrable [by guv] because its inherent to our nature

That means it cannot be separated from itself.

So from here forward you simply intend to falsify the contexts used by chomsky? Is that your game plan?

 

Then why did Chomsky say the concept of natural law is "impenetrable"?

..as in: "I think its one of those things we cannot penetrate". (I see you offer your thoughts on this below....)

Note the use of the word "instinctively" in that sentence; by observation, we can say infants like all creatures are born with survival instincts, cf knowing what is fair and unfair, which is only possible after an awareness of the self is developed (in infancy).

On the contrary I am drawing the correct conclusions from his own words, as noted in my above two points.

Thanks for telling us what Chomsky "intended" by : "I think its one of those things we cannot penetrate" .

My reading is it's impenetrable because it's a notion derived from inherent survival instincts, which when confronted by the survival instincts in another individual, engender a sense of "justice".

Note: the alpha male (or female) isn't concerned about "justice"....which by the way explains why government normally fails in its task of dispensing justice and/or creating security for the governed. Awareness of this fact contains the clue to creating good governance.

Survival instincts ARE separate from, and indeed, precede a sense of justice (in humans), as noted above.

I've no desire to play games, the topic is too important. What is required is rational analysis based on observation, as demonstrated above.

 

FALSE
He said "epistemology is the best method for getting to the best theories of natural law, but its one of those things we cant penetrate."

Then why are you playing games?

chomsky said "positive law should be trying to implement natural law", which according to you is based in individual sovereignty which according to you is bad.

It means epistemology cant penetrate it, which means too many conditionals, in combination with too many subjective variables.

its based in the 'inherent nature' of the human condition which INCLUDES survival.

 

.

Exactly........"epistemology" (ie knowledge via observation) to arrive at "theories of natural law".... which are impenetrable.

Which is absolutely NOT what you said he meant, namely: "His intended is that its impenetrable because its inherent to our nature".

I'm not, as you can see from my examination of what Chomsky actually said, as opposed to what you said he meant.

Of course I like Chomsky's concept of "positive law" by which he obviously means implementing law on behalf of justice for ALL individuals (not just the wealthy elite, or 'security' of the state itself, which he was at pains to explainin the first video) .

Now as for "by trying (?) to implement natural law", well.... trying to implement natural law surely serves the same purpose - in Chomsky's estimation - as implementing "positive law", as noted above.

Whereas my proposition is that what we call "natural law" is nothing more than the survival mechanism endowed on all creatures by nature, ie, survival instincts.
(Admittedly, it would be handy to get Chomsky's affirmation of my argument, here, but I think my argument is internally consistent, and especially noting we have that statement of his, namely "Impenetrable....theories of natural law").

As for natural law as defined by me, above: well.... yes, some aspects of the instinct-driven natural world are repulsive, such as the predator-prey relationship, totally devoid of the justice element in Chomsky's "positive law".

[And even the author of Isaiah 11:6 agrees with me, hence his other-worldly vision of peaceful co-existence of species; "The calf and the lion will graze together, and a little child will lead them. ... And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, And the leopard shall lie down with the kid".]

Whereas "individual sovereignty" is impossible in a world dedicated to "positive law" (I thank Chomsky for that concept), because each individual has his own idea of what is best for himself.. requiring mediation by justice- serving law to avoid anarchy.

Which means ....the topic of the OP cannot be proved or disproved? I disagree, because objective reality can be observed.

Addressed above. Both positive law (based on justice), and natural "law" (based on instinct) are features of the human condition, speaking of which:
(link)
The Human Condition Solved! - World Transformation Movement

Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith puts our observably psychotic behavior - eg endless killing of children in war - down to homo sapiens' evolved self-awareness which enables us to choose to individually act against instinct, unlike other animals. Which corresponds to my designation of the "individual sovereignty" ideology, as delusional, if we want a world ruled by justice for all.

 

What gives you the impression that natural rights have anything to do with "nature" as you refer to it?

Clearly, you are arguing from ignorance.

There is no right to violently rule over another person. You claim the right to act criminally without being held accountable for your criminal actions.

 

You can follow the debate with kokomojojo, I don't intend to repeat it all again for you; in short, my thesis is the opposite ie 'natural "rights"' have nothing to do with nature.... and that (universal) "justice" is a human construct.

Clearly you haven't followed the debate, as noted above.

Tell that to the tiger stalking you in the bush...

Look in the mirror: you want the right to decide whether your behavior is criminal or not.

 

You claimed ALL and ANY thought is a human construct to evade and duck out of conceding the argument.
Nothing can be communicated to another without the expression of thought.
Therefore using your prescription of logic instinct and survival are also 'constructs'.
Your whole premise falls apart by your own rules.

Agreed, he has a false premise in several ways but simply refuses to accept the facts as this is a nothing more than a platform for him to advertise his commie marxist overlord agenda.

 

No, I claim the idea of "inherent natural rights" is a human construct. OTOH, human desire involves thought and may or may not be real (ie objective reality).
eg desire for a real object IS objective reality, whereas a subjective desire for certain abstract ("impenetrable") ideas TO BE real, does not make that abstract idea itself objective reality.

Now it's clear Chomsky and I want an international rules-based system, in order to implement "universal justice" (eg as described in the UNUDHR) - a human construct - because such a desirable system in NOT inherent in nature.

Agreed, whether that thought is based in or involves instinct or reason.

Can you elucidate that point? Given my above statement, namely:

"desire for a real object IS objective reality, whereas a subjective desire for certain abstract ("impenetrable") ideas TO BE real, does not make that abstract idea itself objective reality."

You ignored my reply to the rest of his post; and I quite liked my closing argument, demolishing BHK's accusation of my criminality.....an accusation BHK obviously grabbed out of his grab-bag of Anarchist apologetics.