The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

yes, the bill of rights contains 10 amendments preventing the government from violating those 10 items.

reality remains. Natural rights do not exist outside of a philosophical human construct.

 

very good. they were created and written down by man. They do not exist outside of this. Thank you.

correct. the source is man made.

 

Rights have to be written by man because

1) Squirrels can't write

2) Writing is the most effective means of communicating, i.e., expressing and understanding, rights (amongst countless others things)

 

LOL - Make up your mind, rahl...

You're right!!

 

where did you get lost? Natural rights do not exist outside of a man made construct. They do not exist in nature.

 

They're inherent in Man, as are all rights/powers. You're welcome.

The source is woman-made, too, unless you're a test tube baby. Of course, one might argue that God is the source, instead of Man.

 

I didn't get lost anywhere. You finally admitted in Post #168 that Natural Rights exist outside of a philosophical human construct.

You should have realized that in the OP...

Look at those goalposts go!!

Again, Natural Rights are inherent in individual human beings.

They exist in Nature as Nature pertains to human beings and human nature.

 

Already established that this is false. It’s why you can’t show where they exist outside of the man made construct.

Your need to prove a god exists before you can claim it gave you natural rights.

 

You seem either confused or you have reading comprehension issues.

 

There's nothing to be confused about:

I'm glad you conceded my point and acknowledged that Natural Rights do exist outside of philosophical human constructs.

You're right!

 

Nor do squirrles have to, to have their Natural Right.
By Definition: Natural Right doesn't need to be communicated. It occurs Naturally in Nature. And as my 1st post said, it is afforded to all humans at worst and all living creatures at best.

Thanks for proving all rights written by man, are man made rights.

 

No you haven't. In fact, the only thing you've established is that the claim you made in Post #2 is wrong. But I already told you that...

Actually I have. All rights/powers are inherent in Man, and any powers the government possesses are conferred by the individual (or association of individuals) to government. Government possesses no inherent powers.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

As I mentioned earlier, the entire premise of your assumption/argument was rekt over 600 years ago, and that's a good thing.

That's a legitimate argument...

 

Irrelevant.

Squirrels can't write, that's why rights have to be written by man. However, we can write rights for squirrels....because squirrels can't write.

I agree to an extent but in order for people to discuss, express and understand with one another they have to be communicated and writing is one of the ways we communicate especially when we can't communicate orally or telepathically.

No need to thank me for something I didn't prove.

 

So, you confirm again you have reading comprehension issues.

 

So again, natural rights do not exist outside of the man made construct. It’s why you can’t show where they are written or who gave them to us or show us where they exist in nature.

 

If man is writing down squirrels rights and man abides by those rights he wrote down, those are man made rights. I doubt a coyote will follow the rights man wrote down when it comes to possibly eating a squirrel for lunch.
Or another squirrel won't adhere to property rights if another comes to their tree to take the food they stored away for winter.
Who get the food in the tree will be determined on who kicks out the other squirrel.

 

The problem is that right (underlined) does NOT exist, especially in the US. Recall the NAIRU (Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment)? The present almost global neoliberal monetarist system tolerates c.10% un + underemployment + those who have given up looking for a job in a highly competitive job market, even at the peak of the business cycle.
The current crop of mainstream neoliberal economists are responsible for this involuntary underemployment disaster.

I endeavor to dispel the erroneous mainstream economic orthodoxy that has misled us all into believing government money is "taxpayer money". It's that very false assertion by mainstream economists - easily promulgated because we think government budgets must be balanced just as our own house-hold budgets must be balanced between what we earn and what we spend (to avoid bankruptcy), but nothing could be further from the truth.

And I agree: welfare ("sit-down money") is a disaster for most people. Hence the responsibility of government to act as employer of last resort (ELR)

The Case for a Job Guarantee | Pavlina Tcherneva (pavlina-tcherneva.net)

Venezuela was too dependent on one source of export income, ie, oil, which is the reason its economy collapsed when the price of oil collapsed, and with it the nation's exchange rate.

 

You are wandering from the topic, which has advanced to why can and do humans create "rights", and what does this mean for creativity, aspiration and technological advance for the human species. I can see you are now going to bang on about Libertarian rights to disregard the well being of others.

Those people present at the founding of the UN charter certainly thought so, but they were defeated by the mythology of 'individual sovereignty' (which you are preaching) , above a peaceful secure community. That's why the veto power was forced onto the UNSC, rendering it incapable of carrying out its task to defend the UNUDHR.

How long will the present regime of MAD be the basis of managing international affairs? When we are looking at the stars....and thinking of exploring the universe?

Yes, that's the word, "conscience", which precludes bombing children in their homes, as part of a "just" war. But burning witches represents the power of ignorance over knowledge (again, instinct over "reason/comscience"), because ignorance is often tied to dogma that promises the survival of the tribe, eg, sacrificing children to the sun god.

Haven't read Kant, but I'll wager it's open to interpretation. In any case, human "conscience" and "reason" exist beyond any of MY dogmas, whereas human "conscience" IS manifested in the desire for universal "justice".

Hey I know that already. But here is Blaise Pascal with a more "balanced" view of the human animal:

"What a Chimera is man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe.” ― Blaise Pascal, Pensées

What side of that lot do you wish to gravitate toward?

No, but if apes and dolphins can hear symphonies in their heads, it must be incredibly frustrating for them not to be able to share it with their fellows.

Willreadmore has disposed of your argument there, so I will move on.

 

Much of this is covered in my #193. (I'm amused to see both of us citing Dresden...)

Of course poverty and war (or should that be war and poverty) will be eliminated because they must be eliminated. The planet's biodiversity and ecological sustainability depend on it.

Yes, we are driven by competitive, self-interested survival instincts that belong to the animal portion of our nature, which are infinitely more destructive owing to human weapons' development capacity. Understand? That's what international governance has to deal with.

Just as national government is necessary to avoid anarchy.. international governance is required to eradicate war and poverty, an essential task to avoid the 6th (and final) extinction of life on the planet, explained above.

 

The fact is, that right does exist in the U.S.. I've exercised it myself several times to obtain higher paying jobs.

By fact and definition the money the government collects from taxpayers is taxpayer money, although some people labor under the delusion that it is government money.

As for the spending in Washington, it is completely out of control. Accruing debt within one's means is one thing, but accruing debt you cannot possibly hope to repay is a recipe for financial disaster.

Current Federal debt: $28.2 trillion
Current unpaid liabilities: $162.5 trillion

The government has no such responsibility, which explains why that non-existent responsibility is not enumerated in the Constitution.

Nicholas Maduro admitted that the entire economic model was a failure, and he is right. We saw the same model fail time and time again during the spectacularly failed socialist experiment of the 20th Century.

It seems that you and I are getting into a discussion and debate concerning the merits (or lack thereof) of Socialism, which is a debate I am interested in having but isn't the subject of this thread.

 

What makes you think I dont understand the claim I made?

Oh? Whats wrong with anarchy?

Simple way to eliminate war is to limit all wealth to perfect division for all.

citations? Wil has proven he reads little more than a glance down wiki. When we dig into the substance he is religiously forced to bail. If you want to claim he is correct then you litigate the claim.

So man created the nature of man and if this is true then it follows that man had to create man, since the nature of man cannot exist without man.

Now I might be agnostic, but that reasoning, the claim man created the nature of man is way to close to total nutterville for my taste.

 

this is completely incoherent.

 

Here's the problem with your thinking: just because YOU did it, you think everyone can do it. I already explained that there is ALWAYS c.10% un/underemployment in a neoliberal economy. That's just fact. And in the business cycle, the most disadvantaged are always first laid-off and last rehired.

Correct (at least in the underlined).

The delusion is that government NEEDS taxpayer money before it can spend. It does not.

Modern Monetary Theory for Conservatives | The American Conservative

All mainstream 'flat-earth' economic nonsense. Even Rush Limbaugh eventually decided government debt wasn't a problem, when Trump was gleefully enacting unfunded $trillion tax cuts for the wealthy.

[link]
(19) Warren B. Mosler #MMT on Twitter: "RT @StephanieKelton: This is very well well done. MMT shifts the terms of the debate. From budget constraints to values/priorities. https:/…" / Twitter

Values and priorities, like full employment.

So why are Trump and now Biden so paranoid about China's spectacular development, with its nominal GDP expected to surpass the US in a decade?

I am showing that equating "inherent rights" on the one hand, with the delusion of 'individual sovereignty" (which can't exist if you agree to accept government and rule of law) as a basis for good governance, is an erroneous equation. Good governance requires community cohesion. Is the US an example of good governance?

 

well..you seemed to think you were making some sort of meaningful point when you said: "Chimps don't use their tools to kill as many other chimps as they can for personal gain, human animals do."

I showed your point was irrelevant as far as the human capacity to make war is concerned, and explained why it was irrelevant.

Multiply the current riots in Minneapolis to include the entire nation...there's your answer.

Simple maybe, but wrong. The way to eliminate war is to create an international rules-based system in which war is criminalized, actually easier to achieve than disarming citizens within a nation, because nations are separate from one another ......unlike citizens in a nation who are concerned about their own need to defend themselves from their own neighbors.

OK, today I have time to address your argument myself.

You said: "You can say it till you turn green, the us was intended to protect rights".

Actually re "intention" of the US :

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[a] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And I'll conclude with the same remark I made to Talon:

I am showing that equating "inherent (individual) rights" on the one hand, with the delusion of 'individual sovereignty' (which can't exist if you agree to accept government and rule of law) as a basis for good governance (ie, "a more perfect union"), is an erroneous equation. Good governance requires community cohesion. Is the US an example of good governance?

 

Here's the problem with your thinking - you made a claim that has been refuted by millions of Americans who have moved from lower paying jobs to higher paying jobs for decades, so the right has been demonstrated to exist countless times and it still exists. I haven't done anything that millions of other Americans haven't done, as well.

Granted, the Covid-related shutdowns have made it much harder for people to exercise that right since so many businesses have been closed along with their job opportunities, but that's not our economy's fault. Government officials ordered those shutdowns and other restrictions.

Get real, my friend. If the government didn't need taxpayer money to spend it wouldn't collect taxes. That goes particularly true for state and local governments that can't print money willy-nilly like the federal government.

Bankruptcy is not "'flat-earth' economic nonsense", it's a very real problem, and I didn't say that government debt was necessarily a problem any more than personal debt is necessarily a problem. What's a problem is amassing enormous amounts of debt that one cannot repay and continuing to add to that debt. As I said earlier, our government's spending is completely out of control, not to mention unsustainable.

Not impressed, on several levels. Especially the part about devaluing the dollar.

Values and priorities have always been part of the discussion, and serving as the employer of last resort is still not a government responsibility nor is it necessarily a good idea. "Liberal" Democrats, such as my former governor L. Douglas Wilder, have acknowledged such.

If you want to compare the directions China and Venezuela went let's go ahead and compare who liberalized their economy and who didn't and what were the results of each. You're not going to like the answer.

As for our problems vis a vis China, those have resulted largely from the fact that our economies (and others) haven't been competing with that country on a level playing field. That problem existed before Biden and Trump took office, too.

It's difficult to read what you're trying to assert here so I'm going to have to break it down.

First of all, individual sovereignty is not a delusion and it can and does exist if you agree to accept a government and the rule of law. Where you got the idea that the two are mutually exclusive to one another is a mystery to me. Even the most die hard libertarians who value the utmost levels of individual sovereignty accept government and the rule of law (most particularly the latter). Secondly, individual sovereignty is what our republican representative system of government is based on. Government does not derive its powers from itself nor do our representatives elect themselves.

Finally, upholding our inherent rights is the core function of our government and what it was designed to do, so obviously upholding those rights qualifies as good governance. Of course, government is not limited to that task and has other functions that contribute to (or detract from) good governance.

This brings us back to the matter of government (including the rule of law) upholding our inherent natural rights. If the government doesn't do that we don't get community cohesion - we get anarchy and the breakdown of society.

If you're asking for my assessment of our government's performance I would have to give it a failing grade. First, it's too big, too intrusive and too expensive. Second, it fails to uphold our inherent rights, fails to uphold the rule of law, fails to operate within its constraints and has been instrumental in significantly eroding our rights and freedoms. Third, on a purely practical level, it is corrupt, incompetent and spectacularly inefficient, wasteful and fiscally irresponsible. Fourth, the nomenklatura and apparatchiks in Washington are more concerned with their own power, wealth and interests than serving the American people. Finally, the social welfare programs it has enacted since the 1960s have had disastrous consequences on our country and its people, most particularly the people they were supposed to help. It has produced a welfare class that will continue to remain mired in poverty and that will continue to produce problems such as the gun violence that is rampant in our cities. This criticism isn't a call to cut down our social safety nets, either. I'm all for those protections but where they do more harm than good they have to be fixed.

Good governance is a wonderful goal, but let's not be naive. I grew up in Washington DC - I know better than most people how that cess pool of corruption on the Potomac operates. I hate to say it, but good governance is something you and I will not see in our lifetimes. The best we can hope for is the least harmful governance.