The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

As Distaff above has noted (along with many others) there is no such thing as "natural rights".

After I proved it to you.....remember? Some apples have to bear the weight of others, showing that your individual sovereignty belief is delusional...

And you yourself noticed the lion doesn't stop to consider your "natural rights"

??? We are "born free" ..and we desire to be free. Where is the "euphemism"?

Note my underlined; that's what I said above.

"Liberty is built on that freedom" is mere sophistry, liberty is not built on liberty, liberty is merely desirable, you can bleat about a "natural right to liberty" all you like but that won't make it real. Only rule of law can defend liberty.

No its not liberty in the aggregate which can only be achieved by rule of law as noted above

You don't have any natural rights. Only the freedom you were born with...until it is infringed upon by someone else acting on the freedom they possess.

Ready to accept rule of law devoted to promoting freedom from fear and want yet?

 

False, D didnt note that, and I agree with what D said if it is meant exactly as said.

non sequitur, you skewed the point, nothing in that example has anything to do with sharing the load of anything.

Why must you always pull everything out of context?
No when you try to steal the lions food he will show you that you violated his rights by having you for supper.

What we desire does not come into the picture, born is nature, and if its nature its natural and like you trying to steal the lions lunch its defined as a natural right.

Thats right being born free is what natural rights are, you already agreed to that.

Its a fact, youve shown no such thing.

I said liberty is built upon natural rights.

nah just well armed people

I have yet to see any family unit with statutes

thats what natural rights are, carried forward.

thats delusional people are more terrified of cops than they are criminals!

 

My position is that there is no evidence of objective morality or natural rights. Rights really are just rules of thumb to make moral decisions easier so we don't have to make complex utilitarian computations. If something results in an increase in happiness and prosperity almost all the time, I'm okay with calling it a right and our society calling it a right.

 

So then natural rights do exist and we are just discussing the degree to which they exist.

Describe this 'universal right'?

I agree if it infringes on my natural rights, regardless of your opinion.

Bingo!
In the US, the guv owns the property, you get the facade title of owner, when in fact its 'renter' at the whim of da guv.

That however does not invalidate them, and if that is the case then your state overstepped its authority and has infringed upon the rights of the individual.

If each individual agrees not a problem, then its a lawful contract with the state.

What is it to you and how is it a delusion?

How did you conclude 'some' not ALL?

thats a stretch, sovereignty has nothing what so ever to do with survival of the fittest.

So you want to destroy our natural rights so you can usher in a one world guv model?

BassAcwards, rights are not modeled based upon law, law is modeled based upon rights.

Its your mistake to claim they are inseperable. You have shown no such thing and even agreed we are born free. Doubtful you truly understand what that means.

Your sovereign club?

nothing exists that can universally apply to every contingency, why do you demand such ridiculous criteria?

We have already seen the disastrous results of your big guv, have you learned nothing from it?

Describe this "objective morality" and "natural rights" for us and what constitutes 'proof of claim evidence'.

 

How can one say they "Own" a piece of property when they pay monthly rent in the form of property tax - and it is no small amount of rent.

 

Thats your job. The burden of proof is on you to explain what you mean by natural rights, and you explain what the evidence is and why its evidence.

 

the question is however, what is acceptable evidence such that you would say ok you accept xyz evidence as valid evidence, I am not asking you to prove my claim.

If you cant tell us what evidence is valid evidence, for instance if you told me a murder took place and asked me what would be sufficient evidence to get past summary judgment, I would demand corpus delicti as acceptable evidence, at least to start with. That would prove to you I know my stuff and am not jerking your chain in the debate.

 

yes, in fact even in feudal tenure, the renters were called owners, the king was the real owner, this guv slipped us a boner starting with the liege pledge all immigrants must swear to!

 

I really haven't thought about what would be valid evidence. Try presenting some evidence, and I'll let you know whether or not I believe it to be valid, and we can have a discussion about my reasoning. If you think I'm trying to jerk your chain, then maybe you shouldn't be debating with me in the first place.

 

Its totally like a feudal system in many ways - just on a grander and more complex scale. A few families have most of the wealth - .. the rest of us serfs working the land - basically working for food.

 

If you have no idea what evidence is acceptable evidence frankly you disqualify yourself as as capable of having a viable debate.

Bingo!
I had to read **** loads of law both uk and us to prove it to myself but there it is! In fact the state of new york actually originally set itself up as a feudal guv, till the other states nixed them

 

The whole point of my case is that I have no idea what evidence there is for objective morality or what possibly could be evidence. If I have been missing something big this whole time, then feel free to educate me. But I have a feeling you are just as much in the dark as I am.

 

There are 3 bank "accounts" - State-Street is one of them - Wiki -

You can find the same numbers over at Mellon and same at Morgan .. what was really strange was that was 32 Trillion prior to Covid - No kidding .. went up 6 Trillion ??

Anyhow times all numbers by 3 - and you get 9 Trillion "Under Management" = invested in stocks/ bonds

OK .. so how much is that ?? . Well - the so called "Largest hedge fund" according to Investopedia - is Bridgewater - at 160 Billion

9 Trillion is like 30% of the dow - and these three you will find as the largest shareholders of the top 100 companies.

Its a huge amount of money..

But wait - let us not forget the money "Under custody and Administration" .38 Trillion x 3 = 100 Trillion +

OK .. so .. How the frick much is that ??? .. estimates vary but total world wealth is around 400 Trillion.

3 banks mate .. We hear about "Bill Gates" and Bezos ... around 100 Billion gets you into "richest man in the world territory" Supposedly. but .. BUT - Obviously - there are families out there with Trillions .. and that is way too much fkn money for a family .. FULL STOP.

Assume 5% interest .. on 1 Trillion dollars - say from the 9 Trillion in stock market play money.. That is 50 Billion a year - without touching the principle.

Well how much is that ? .. Well .. we could break it down .. 5 Billion a year for 10 households - so 500 million each house hold .. "PER YEAR"

So somehow this poor family has to manage to survive on 40 million per month. roughly 1.3 million per day - 365 days a year.

And that is the calculation for 1 Trillion. Since we are in the Religion section ... This is more money than God.

 

I broadly agree with with that. Rights are human inventions, eg the UNUDHR, which we OUGHT to get about implementing ASAP, since there is no lack of resources which would prevent it; the blockage comes from delusional theories of "natural individual rights" (so long as no-one else is harmed...) and individual sovereignty, which is impossible if there is more than one instinctively self-interested individual, and they desire peaceful co-existence.

 

D later said: "there is no evidence of objective morality or natural rights".

I see your debate with D has fizzled out over the issue of defining the relevant evidence.

Your analogy, which failed spectacularly. When there is more than one individual, the power relationship with the other individuals changes.

The lion has no rights, only instincts to survive. How much evidence do you need to accept that point?

Now you are trying to define nature in terms of rights...which don't exist. Survival instincts, and the resulting individual interactions, do exist. How much evidence do you need?

No I didn't, True, I don't always put rights in quotation marks (to indicate such "rights" are human constructs...see, I omitted the quotation marks in the bolded, to illustrate the point). Being born free until you are not (through being eaten or otherwise oppressed), is NOT evidence of "natural rights".

But natural rights are delusional, how much evidence do you need. We are all free until we are oppressed or eaten by a stronger individual.

like Israel, who defends its "rights" to liberty by killing and occupying/oppressing Palestinians who want to protect THEIR "rights" to liberty and freedom from oppression, which includes sovereignty over East Jerusalem, according to THEIR concept of liberty (to pray in the Al Aqsa mosque unhindered).

Only an international rules based system can adjudicate liberty for both competing claims, otherwise nature's 'might is right' wins the day.

That's because the family unit is naturally - instinctively - cohesive, hardly requiring rule of law re issues of liberty of family members, until relationships fail.

There are no natural rights, just freedom until taken away by others.

In your world where everyone is armed against his own neighbor in a misguided attempt to protect liberty, so the poor cops are as terrified and trigger happy toward the population they are supposed to defend as the citizens are terrified of the cops. Sad. Courtesy of your delusional individual rights ideology......when the better course would be systemic institution of an economy that works for all, and security that works for all via an international rules-based system.

 

I expect most of this has been dealt with in my previous post (#440); let's see.

I stated you are free until some creature predates on you or oppresses you. Once again you ignore the meaning of the quote marks, hence you miss that the statement "you have a "right" to freedom" means the same as "you are free until some creatures deprives you of that freedom", which is nature's way.

The "right" (note the quotes) of everyone to freedom from fear and want (actually in the preamble to the UN UDHR), which can only be instituted under an international rules-based system - a human construct - to counter nature's instinct-based system of 'might is right'.

The "will of the people" can only be determined by rule of law, and is determined independently of both your and my opinion regarding your "rights" (note the quotes). . Ask the SCOTUS.
Likewise for international law, where the SCOTUS must be subordinate to an ICC/UNSC (without veto), in matters of international dispute, to adjudicate international disputes.

You mean the US system of property ownership is the same as in China? In fact there are far more significant failings in the US system than property-ownership laws; eg money creation confined to the debt-based-lending private banking sector, while the relevant public sector institutions (treasury, reserve bank) are banned from issuing the government's own currency on a debt free basis.

Addressed above; conflicting individuals' desires will have to adjudicated by rule of law.

And if an individual does NOT agree (for whatever false reason) eg, to institute an economy that works for all, then the state will have to over-rule that individual's desires.

An Instinctively self-interested individual cannot be sovereign in any complete sense, if more than one individual exists,

See the underlined above.

Sovereignty is desired, to enable attainment of one's desires to the maximum extent achievable. In nature, individual sovereignty is manifested in the 'pecking order' which usually requires violence to change the status quo, hence the survival of the fittest. Same in human societies.

Adjudication of international disputes by the relevant courts is not a "one world government", you can still decide speed limits at local government level, and the rights of women vis a vis abortion, and your method of funding public infrastructure, at the national government level.
But your nation cannot decide to launch nukes at other nations....(in the age of MAD)

How can law be based on non-existent rights? Law is mediation between individuals' conflicting desires; hence measured by the familiar 'scales of justice', all of which are human constructs.

It means we are free until someone else decides we are not.. which can only be resolved by violence, in the absence of rule of law.

Representing a distillation in law and experience, ocer cenruries, of what works. An economy that works for all is yet to be achieved, as is the criminalization of war.

What is conceivable can be achieved, when the "individual sovereignty" delusion is finally comprehended and relegated to the dust-bin of history. Keynes and Evatt identified the necessary legal co-operative mechanisms, years ago.

You mean in China which is likely to overtake the US within the decade, while its government is gaining ever- increasing support, while the US is becoming evermore divided by hyper-partisanship?

Let's start with what they are not:

1. Objective morality: did not exist in survival-instinct-driven nature before the arrival of humans, who either created the concept themselves because they wanted the security of 'justice' in a survival of the fittest, instinct-driven world, or who became aware of a 'morality' infusing the world from a divine-creator/eternal consciousness** at its source. (**God, if real, is beyond human understanding, after all...)

2. "Natural rights" are a human construct which mistakenly conflates individuals' desires with "rights", in a natural world which is only concerned with survival of life in the aggregate, not of the lives of individuals.

The evidence for both these assertions is obtained by observation of nature,

 

Wrong. Only other people or their institutions can take away your freedom. It's up to you to deal with whatever nature sends your way.

Refuted above. Only people can violate human rights, not animals, because rights are a societal phenomenon that animals are not bound by.

The UN's UDHR is a political document, not a philosophical one, and cannot be consistently defended.

Laws are one way people have tried to formalize government's function of securing and reconciling the individual rights of all.

Desires are not rights.

Civilized people give up their liberty to abrogate others' rights in return for others not abrogating theirs.

Desires are not rights.

No it isn't. In human societies, A will defend B's rights against C even when they are unknown to each other. That doesn't happen in animal societies, and is very much the point.

Nope. Desires are subjective. Law is about rights, which are objective.

Rights are human constructs, and are in that sense not "natural"; but they are part of human nature, and in that sense are natural.

Right: our right to freedom can only be abrogated by another person, not by an animal.

It's not merely that they wanted it; rather, those who had rights survived and reproduced better than those who didn't. That empirically confirmed reproductive advantage is what makes rights natural.

It is precisely because human beings can only survive and reproduce successfully in society that we have rights.

Look again, and note how nature is different from human society.