The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

I'm laughing at the hilariously moronic claim you made that you have disproven Einstein.

which has been refuted. rights are not inherent. They are codified in law and protected by government, or protected by the individual through force. They do not exist in nature.

 

Your reply here is so infused with your insistance that you won some past argument that it's hard to even see what your argument could possibly be.

In the OP, you show someone's work indicating that philosophy on rights has ancient origins and has had significant development over that long period of time. Great. The same is true for philosophies of government that developed over similar time frames.

Now we see people claiming that our natural rights are what is written in our constitution - a ludicrous contention if one simply considers that the body of work on rights could not possibly lead to an answer so short and practically oriented as our constitution.

Again, our constitution was designed as a description of and an argument for a specific form of government - NOT a treatice on rights. In fact, it leaves the philosoophical issues of rights and their source to simply claiming they are natural. Woohoo!

For example, our second amendment is very obviously not a "natural right". It says nothing about some natural right of self defense or the degree of violence legitimate in self defense. It doesn't say whether I'm justified in killing someone who rang my doorbell if I'm scared of them. In fact, there is every reason to believe that "right" is about the necessity of organized defense as required by government. Yet it is right in there with rights we think of as natural, talking about a specific form of weaponry and whether people can own it - with our SC declaring that the phrase saying why such an amendment is important MUST be ignored!!

Then, we have the machinery for arbitrating where the edges of these rights actually are. Yet, there is no discussion of what is "natural" about that. We just find that rights as enumerated may be limited for various reasons - more evidence that our constitution is about a form of government, NOT a treatice on rights.

In the end, our constitution is a response that is highly influenced by the problems we experienced while under the rule of England - property, representation, defense, legality of laws, etc. and supported by pointing to elements of philosophy of rights and government in a significant hand wave.

 

The problem with the rights model is that its dogmatic and faith based. But the world changes and this faith can hold us back from changing the government to adapt.

For example, because the world has gotten a lot more complicated we need a larger government than we did in 1800. A government with a standing military, has to deal with terrorism, and many other issues.

The problem is that our technology is improving most more quickly than we are culturally evolving. We are learning new ways of destroying ourselves and messing things up for ourselves.

We will need a larger and more powerful government to limit the spread of power weapons, environmental damage, terrorist attacks, and dangerous technologies.

 

I would say these are the problems of government. As you point out, they increase as we become more densely populated and interdependent. So, there is a vast field of philosophy relating to government.

That shouldn't be seen as impacting what must be considered natural rights, as the term natural surely means something innate about humans. Natural rights are part of the definition of what a human is. Philosophies of government have to recognize what humans are.

What is total BS is the idea that there is a form of civilization that can handle our current density and interdependence while also seeing "natural rights" as absolute.

The absolute is that civilization will ALWAYS require contribution and cooperation.

 

Yes you are laughing at the craziness you posted, I never said any such thing, 'that I have disproven weener' you own it buddy, lock stock n barrel!

Why human rights are inherent?

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages/whatarehumanrights.aspx

Your mistake continues to be the same it is everywhere else. you fail to understand basic logic and grammar, which incidentally is based in basic logic.

Like I said, if you are foolish enough to test what an inherent right is hand someone a loaded 44 then try to choke them to death and see how long it takes them to fill you full of slugs in the exercise of their inherent rights, and the guv will take one quick look and its case dismissed against the other guy.

Point is, like every other discussion you get into that has a logical 'OR' in the definition you completely ignore part B, same thing when you argued the definition of atheism. Countless people came out of the wood word and proved you wrong, yet you maintain posting that garbage every chance you get.

That is intellectual dishonest.

heh...
Corrupt guv begets corrupt people, bullshit in bullshit out.

Just remember; you lie to the guv its a felony, the guv lies to you its just politics!

 

Humans are constructed in a certain way.

But, the rights we experience are those that government defends for us.

And, there is NO form of civilization that can see natural rights as an absolute requirement.

Every civilization runs as a compromise among its participants.

 

you claimed to have disproven Einstein. That claim is hilariously moronic.

they aren't. rights are a philosophical construct that do not exist outside of this. the only rights you have are those the government defends for you, or that you are able to defend for yourself.

 

Sure vairious unlawful reasons, with the exception to amendment, damn couldnt find one, guess you are sol.

It was allegedly built around it.

Yeh its really well understood world wide by all nations, so whats your problem with it?

They are, at least the ones people demanded before they would allow the ratification of the constitution.

Yeh that was before modern day people got degrees in psuedo education.

He won in the OP!

Right to life? LOL Reading on strike again?

People in 'America' dont need instructions on how to breathe either.

WTF? You want it to give you a prescription?

Which is self defense, severally and jointly.

The bill of rights grants no rights to the people. ZERO!

With that understanding there is simply no way you are american, hell you wouldnt even pass the immigration test ffs

 

Which doesn't matter either way since your ridiculous assumption was debunked by Medieval jurists 600+ years ago. Not that you've supported your position, but you lost this argument before you were even born to lose it.

Far from it, rahl- you're balled up in an Early 12th Century cocoon of denial, playing make believe and failing to support your claims.

I'm in agreement with most of what you say here, Will, save for the part concerning the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms has always been associated with or considered an extension of the natural rights of life, self-preservation and self-defense, and the most recent court rulings (Heller, etc.) have supported that:

Of course that right, like any other right, is not absolute. I'm a gun owner and I recognize that and I have no problem with it, either.

 

false stop making **** up please

 

except you and I both know it wasn't. natural rights do not exist outside of a philosophical human construct. you can not demonstrate otherwise, which is why you haven't been able to in the past 4 pages.

 

lol

and................http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-false-god-s-of-physics.586429/

 

the exact wording in its development was able bodied, all humans have a right to life, hence to the tools necessary to insure that is the case.

I disagree because he is tooting from the wrong premise.

 

Thank you, but to be fair the argument was won over 600 years ago. I'm just flogging it to the bone and sinew.

 

by the gps, and weener never predicted gravity waves, again rahl please stop making **** up about me.

 

your argument was refuted on page 1. as you are aware, because you can not demonstrate they actually exist, natural rights are simply a philosophical human construct.

 

I just proved you claimed to have disproven Einstein. With 2 separate citations, lol. The claim you made if ****ing hilariously moronic.

 

As I'm aware, you're wrong, and it's been demonstrated that it is a legal construct dating back to the 12th and 13th Centuries (at least).

Reading is fundamental...

 

Geezus, so citing gps empirical evidence and the people that did is now a "you" meaning me, you need to seriously check your comprehension of grammar.

I had no part in proving weener was wrong, please wake up and for once in your life comprehend the messenger is not the message.

 

which has been refuted. I have consistently and correctly pointed out that natural rights do not exist outside of a philosophical human construct. The only rights you have at protected by government, or defended by you, through force. They don't exist outside of this.

 

I just proved you claimed to have disproven Einstein. With 2 separate citations, lol. The claim you made is ****ing hilariously moronic.

 

Good luck with that! I lost count how many different people have told him that.

 

It's not on the same level as the natural rights of self protection.

It is about a specific means, and specific means are issues of government, not natural rights. Put another way, no treatise on natural rights specifies weapons.

The ruling by the SC is about the intent of the constitution, NOT a comment on natural rights philosophy.

The court simply decided that the context of the second phrase of the 2nd amendment was irrelevant.

 

Einstein's theory predicts gravity waves.

GPS is a technology. It can be seen as a highly controlled experiment that confirms relativity theory. Without that theory, GPS would be off by a LOT.

 

citation?

citation?

citation?

no treatise on natural rights specifies no weapons, is there a point in that somewhere?

citation?

Before you make such gradiose claims you really need to provide citations, I call bullshit, cite it, prove it.