The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

They didnt vote him in to give them someone elses government, wtf?

then why are you yapping about it, making it the issue here?

 

Martin Luther, those in Germany, and the Palestinians aren't good examples because they weren't writers in the bible and I could just say they are violating Romans 13.

Paul only refused to obey when he was asked to disobey God. This makes sense because God is a power above the state. But for everything else, the bible is clear you obey your king.

 

OK, but this isn't Christianity class.

 

The approach some people think that rights come with a rock solid iron clad warranty or its not a right is ludicrous. Like I gave in the example here inherent rights are intrinsic, they can be violated by someone or some guv violating your inherent rights does not mean you do not or did not have and continue to retain them despite the violation(s). Philosophy comes into play after the fact, like any religion, and tries to sort it all out for greater understanding.

 

I strongly suspect that different philosoophies could come up with different sets of "inalienable rights" - or something more different than that.

A significant factor in what our founders identified was oriented to solving the problems of forming a better government in that day, given the history of western experience with government, in a context of western religion.

I don't see it as "after the fact". There was extensive thought and practice for a very long time before America.

 

puhlease, philosophy sorts out what already exists, they dont make **** up.

False it was a copy paste job, try reading more, major pun intended, starting with the magna carta and 1689 bill of rights.

You people seem to have some kind of romance going, with the so called founders, they didnt, it was copy paste, they were constitutors.

 

To paraphrase Mao, all right come from the barrel of a gun, i.e., via force and the willingness to use force. There are no natural rights. Understanding this concept is the key to understanding the 2nd Amendment.

 

No, that isn't a semantic conflict. It's the law. Your rights are inherent, which is why government, to deprive you of life, property, pursuit of happiness is required to engage in due process, like trials because absent that, in colonial colonies, the king simply had you killed, took your land, made you support his army, etc, and you had no recourse. That is the absence of rights at the grant of privilege by authority. This isn't hard stuff, I fail to understand why so many folks misunderstand this dynamic. Judges do not wield the law. they arbitrate it. (Well, unless you're liberal like Kagen, or Sotomayor.... Due process is clearly not "vague". It is the legal foundation this nation and its government must overcome your presumed innocence with. Which is why you are pressured innocent in the first place, and government is required to make a case beyond doubt to punish your or take your property.

If you simply ignore this, and you assume government is truly the authoritarian state, you've describe places like China.

 

What I've noticed is that you keep ignoring where our natural rights are written, and we've been over this before - the Bill of Rights in our Constitution - and we've already gone over the fact that the SCOTUS has based rulings on the natural rights articulated in the Constitution without even mentioning the Constitution itself. Again, we've been over this before. I've also noticed that you've ignored where they come from, which is staring you right in the face - it's the subject of this thread - and that you ignore and deny that they exist in "nature", most particularly "nature" as it refers to human beings and human nature. I've addressed that as well.

Another thing I've noticed, which I pointed out earlier, is that you cling to the ancient and authoritarian assumption that only the government possesses power, which was refuted over half a millennium ago - something I had to belabor for your benefit in my previous post. Thus I've noticed that you have failed to submit anything that reflects the historical and legal knowledge necessary to make an informed comment on this subject. Fortunately for you, I'm here to help.

I should also point out that I've noticed that you've submitted nothing but false, gratuitous and unsubstantiated claims throughout this entire thread and haven't produced anything to support your dead argument, and I noticed that you failed to do this in the past, as well. Furthermore, all of us notice that it's up to you to support the claim you made in Post #2, not me, and I've noticed that you haven't, because you can't. I've also explained to you why you can't, as well.

Which brings us to something else I've noticed that drluggit and I have already explained to you, and that is the fact that power resides in the individual and the association of individuals that is variously referred to as "the People" and "the Body of Christ", etc., depending on whether we're talking about State or Church, and that the power that resides in the individual and association of individuals is conferred to government. That power is not inherent in or derived from the government, and that is where your dead argument fell apart centuries ago. I've noticed that you haven't noticed that, too.

And so we're back to your false, gratuitous and unsubstantiated claims and your failure to support your own position and failure to refute the position of others. It also brings us back to drluggit's brilliantly articulated post:

I've noticed this here and elsewhere during the course of my lifetime, as well. Your argument, rahl, has been the argument of every authoritarian and totalitarian monster, great and small, that has plagued humanity throughout history.

 

What does "inherent rights" mean, and where do they come from?

Your answer to these questions will shed light on your following observation:

If you examine my above questions, you may begin to understand where these 'liberal' judges are coming from...

 

notice you still are unable to show where these natural rights are written, where they come from or where they exist in nature? I noticed that too.

 

LOL

"No, PLEASE kill me! I have no inherent right to life, much less an inherent right to defend it!!!"

It's funny, I was thinking of going there earlier...

 

Gosh, where do our rights come from? Do you know what inherency is? I suppose not. Inherent means, naturally occurring, imbued in the individual. Why? We are sentient. I suppose that escaped your notice? One hopes that you can explain to us why you don't subscribe to this.

 

which would be just as stupid as when he went there, as it's a giant strawman.

 

Notice how you're pretending I didn't show that? I noticed that, too.

Notice how you still can't support the claim you made in Post #2? I noticed, too.

 

Nah, it's just an illustration of how ridiculous your ancient debunked assumption is.

It's time to get out of the early 12th Century, rahl. You can do it!

 

Of course there were no "rights' in nature before human beings evolved, the tooth and claw food-chain is a survival of species mechanism with species predating on one-another.

But humans evolved into this predatory hell.....which persisted, but which was observed by humans as being ....."unsatisfactory".......by reason of the evolved cerebral cortex which endowed humans with the capacity to be both self aware, and aware of the feelings of others, hence the concept of "justice" first realized in written language in eg Hammurabi's Law c.1750BC.

Now of course every human individual has his own idea of what is "fair" (from his own POV...), therefore government is necessary to avoid anarchy.

Which gets us to government, in order to achieve the best balance of (human-created) rights.

I of course think a socialist government, in which individual rights are balanced by community wellbeing which ought to be accessible to all, is the best form of government.

Some say such a government is necessarily "authoritarian"; I would turn it around and say that government by individual rights is oppressive, eg witness the present level of gun violence in the US, correctly described by Biden as a "national embarrassment".

Rahl said:

I agree with the first half of that sentence for reasons explained above; but the second half is contradictory, because it proposes the individual can decide to defend himself against the law as he sees it in relation to his own concept of "rights" (eg if the 2nd amendment was repealed in law, I suspect Rahl would take matters into his own hands...).

 

All explained to Talon in post #68.

 

Im glad you can laugh at yourself!

which is what is acknowledged as inherent rights of humans, might makes right notwithstanding.

 

What you are describing is a hybrid, not socialist, government.

Socialist governments are authoritarian by necessity - it is the nature of the beast - hybrid governments are less so to the extent they impose their coercive power.

First, violent crime in any and every form has nothing to do with individual natural rights, the lawful exercise of those rights or a government by individual rights.

Second, to further reinforce the point, the right to bear arms is connected to the natural rights of life, self-preservation and self-defense. If you walk into a store or someone's home and start shooting people, you are not exercising your natural rights - you are violating the natural rights of others, which is a crime.

 

Inherence in the individual?

Where?

Are you seeing this explanation in Post #68?

 

Hmm.. so he disabused your comment. Now what?

 

we both know you didn't show where, because you can not show where as they don't exist outside of a philosophical human construct.

notice how you made **** up in two different places in your post? me too.

 

but as you know, it's a giant strawman so by definition can't debunk anything I said.

I'm right here in reality talon, pointing out that you can not show where these natural rights are written, who gave them to us, and where they exist in nature outside of a philosophical construct.