• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Natural rights

ecofarm

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,429
Reaction score
43,228
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. The rights are socially natural. This means more than one individual, an agreement. It does not mean what a man might "naturally" be capable of himself, such as property etc.

2. Inalienable does not mean inviolable. It means inseparable from being part of mankind. Natural rights are violated, yet they remain inalienable.

3. It's self evident because one can ask the person next to them or any others (barring insane, it's sociological).



Life, expression and defense.

Would anyone like to add anything? Do we have objections.

That's the basis of the free world, politically. It's not a lie. One ins't super-smart and intellectually destroys the foundation. Natural rights exist.
 
Last edited:
It's imaginary, there is no such thing as natural rights.
 
ecofarm said:
1. The rights are socially natural. This means more than one individual, an agreement. It does not mean what a man might "naturally" be capable of himself, such as property etc.

2. Inalienable does not mean inviolable. It means inseparable from being part of mankind. Natural rights are violated, yet they remain inalienable.

3. It's self evident because one can ask the person next to them or any others (barring insane, it's sociological).



Life, expression and defense.

Would anyone like to add anything? Do we have objections.

That's the basis of the free world, politically. It's not a lie. One ins't super-smart and intellectually destroys the foundation. Natural rights exist.
Click to expand...

This is all John Locke speech.

He created an extended metaphor for an ideal world where everyone is equal.

This then supports his political philosophy.

Back in the early 1700's this thinking arrived about when kings were becoming superfluous and parliaments were gaining strength and authority.

So just remember you can squawk about "natural rights" all you want.

But don't forget Mother Nature is really a bytch and you don't have any rights at all that you cannot personally enforce upon the rest of the world around you.

As the saying goes, might makes right.
 
Riveroaks said:
Exactly !!
Click to expand...

It's make believe, just like gods. There is no evidence to support it. It's just a tool for people who desperately want these rights to exist, yet cannot justify them rationally, to pretend that they're magically floating around in the ether. There is no reason to take them seriously.
 
Cephus said:
It's make believe, just like gods. There is no evidence to support it. It's just a tool for people who desperately want these rights to exist, yet cannot justify them rationally, to pretend that they're magically floating around in the ether. There is no reason to take them seriously.
Click to expand...

Well John Locke and his crew were aristocratic academics and they were rethinking their own Alice In Wonderland world.

The American Founding Freemasons locked onto Locke's ideas (no pun intended), and thus his words got into the Declaration Of Independence and also into the US Constitution.

Poor King George 3rd was just trying to raise tax money to replenish his treasury (printed money had not been invented yet) which had become depleted during the French And Indian Wars in both Europe and America.

So the tax rebels declared their independence, and with a long shot and help from the French navy, the rebels defeated the armies of the King. George Washington was a brilliant general, and not taking anything away from that. He had learned strategy and how to lead troops during the French And Indian Wars as a lieutenant colonel.

The King eventually determined that it was going to cost him more treasure to keep them as colonies than he could ever get back even if he confiscated all their goods.

So the King gave up and let the American Colonies become free and independent states.

That does not make John Locke's catechism any more or less valid. It is simply a philosophy -- like Plato's Republic which is actually based on Sparta not on Athens.
 
Riveroaks said:
He created an extended metaphor for an ideal world where everyone is equal.

This then supports his political philosophy.
Click to expand...

What? No "ideal world" metaphor. Natural rights are a sociological concept. Natural rights are not communism. It's a philosophy upon which the developed world, as we know it today, is based. It's not imaginary or the musings of a lone philosopher.

The founders' "endowed by their creator" meant natural (sociologically), not necessarily from a deity.

Need I note "equal" refers to 'before the law'? For it to mean equal in worth is laughable and I worry about anyone interpreting it as such.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
What? No "ideal world" metaphor. Natural rights are a sociological concept. Natural rights are not communism. It's a philosophy upon which the developed world, as we know it today, is based. It's not imaginary or the musings of a lone philosopher.
Click to expand...

You can thank the UN for human rights.

You can thank John Locke for natural rights.

You can thank Mother Nature for the sunshine, the rain, the fertile soil, the rich seas and forests. But Mother Nature did not give anyone a rule book.

Mother Nature stands back and just watches as we pommel each other.
 
Riveroaks said:
You can thank the UN for human rights.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure every UN human right is a human right; some are more civil or labor rights. Let's stay on topic. Natural rights: life, expression (1st) and defense (2nd).
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not sure every UN human right is a human right; some are more civil or labor rights. Let's stay on topic. Natural rights: life, expression (1st) and defense (2nd).
Click to expand...

You might as well thank everybody as long as you are talking about rights.

You have the right to the lint in your belly button.

That's your only true right.
 
ecofarm said:
1. The rights are socially natural. This means more than one individual, an agreement. It does not mean what a man might "naturally" be capable of himself, such as property etc.
2. Inalienable does not mean inviolable. It means inseparable from being part of mankind. Natural rights are violated, yet they remain inalienable.
3. It's self evident because one can ask the person next to them or any others (barring insane, it's sociological).
Life, expression and defense.
Would anyone like to add anything? Do we have objections.
That's the basis of the free world, politically.
It's not a lie. One ins't super-smart and intellectually destroys the foundation. Natural rights exist.
Click to expand...
As Cephus said, there are No "natural Rights."
And what I bolded shows you contradicted your own Premise.
It/they are a Modern "free world" and "political" idea.
They are not worldwide nor timeless.
 
Freedom, true freedom, is my pistol and my carbine and the ability to kill anyone who tries to take them from me.

4 of me is a fire team.

13 is a squad.

50 is a platoon.

200 is a company.

1000 is a battalion.

50000 is a division.

100000 is a corps.

1000000 is an army.

With such an army I can preserve and defend any rights.

I will leave it to the political philosophers to create those rights.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
As Cephus said, there are No "natural Rights."
And what I bolded shows you contradicted your own Premise.
It/they are a Modern "free world" and "political" idea.
They are not worldwide nor timeless.
Click to expand...

See (2.) above.
 
Riveroaks said:
Freedom, true freedom, is my pistol and my carbine and the ability to kill anyone who tries to take them from me.
..
Click to expand...
Why limit your freedom.
You can shoot anyone you want for any reason you want. Including to Cannabilize them if you're hungry/to survive.
Let's see ecofarm add that last one to his list!
Barring societal breakdown, (at which time there are Again/Still no "Natural Rights"), Some of those will be deemed crime in this society though.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Why limit your freedom.
You can shoot anyone you want for any reason you want. Including to Cannabilize them if you're hungry/to survive.
Let's see ecofarm add that last one to his list!
Barring societal breakdown, (at which time there are Again/Still no "Natural Rights"), Some of those will be deemed crime in this society though.
Click to expand...

Yup, exactly.

After cogito ergo sum comes cogito ergo what if SHTF ?!

It helps to be prepared for anything.
 
Hunger demands relief. Otherwise you will die in 21 to 42 days. After 21 days you cannot reverse the cycle once it has begun.

So everyone has 21 days to feed themselves. Like I said, Mother Nature is a bytch. No exceptions to her rules.

If within that 21 days there are only people around, then you truly do need to eat one of them.

I myself would first try bugs, fish, mice, rats, squirrels, birds, cats, dogs, coyotes, deer, and anything else I could get my hands on before I would cannibalize another human.

But there is still only 21 days to do something.

When Cambyses' Persian soldiers were isolated in the Egyptian desert with no food, they drew lots to see whom to kill and butcher. Being soldiers they understood the situation and were able to accept their fate.
 
Riveroaks said:
Hunger demands relief. Otherwise you will die in 21 to 42 days. After 21 days you cannot reverse the cycle once it has begun....
Click to expand...
Even before 21 days..
were the People's of Borneo/NewGuinea not within their 'natural rights' to kill [each other] for protein - instead of say, root food - which would keep them alive, if not as happily?
If there is any 'Natural' anything/motivation, if Not Rights, it would be something that preserves the genes of your family group, or tribal, genes.
But even then, a baby in Neolithic times, did Not have the 'Right' to be nursed by his mother.
There goes all of them.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
What? No "ideal world" metaphor. Natural rights are a sociological concept. Natural rights are not communism. It's a philosophy upon which the developed world, as we know it today, is based. It's not imaginary or the musings of a lone philosopher.

The founders' "endowed by their creator" meant natural (sociologically), not necessarily from a deity.

Need I note "equal" refers to 'before the law'? For it to mean equal in worth is laughable and I worry about anyone interpreting it as such.
Click to expand...

Natural rights is an ideal, not a reality. It is something that some people, mostly libertarians, wish were true, that doesn't make it actually so. It's a utopian idea and like all utopian ideas, it has exactly zero relevance to the real world that we actually live in. You can have all the wishful thinking you want, it doesn't actually mean a damn thing.
 
mbig said:
Even before 21 days..
were the People's of Borneo/NewGuinea not within their 'natural rights' to kill [each other] for protein - instead of say, root food - which would keep them alive, if not as happily?
Click to expand...

I think you can stretch it to 21 days if you don't waste energy. I don't think you can last any longer than that though, and after 21 days you would need modern hospitalization with an I/V to recover again.

Most people in survival situations don't understand about the 21 days and they wait too long to start eating their friends, by which time it is already too late.

The soccer team that crashed in the Andes Mountains comes to mind.
 
Cephus said:
Natural rights is an ideal, not a reality. It is something that some people, mostly libertarians, wish were true, that doesn't make it actually so. It's a utopian idea and like all utopian ideas, it has exactly zero relevance to the real world that we actually live in. You can have all the wishful thinking you want, it doesn't actually mean a damn thing.
Click to expand...

It's only "true" as long as guys with pistols and carbines and an army are behind you to back it up.
 
Riveroaks said:
It's only "true" as long as guys with pistols and carbines and an army are behind you to back it up.
Click to expand...

It's only true so long as the particular society you are talking about accepts it as true. If you think you have a particular right, then you have it so long as those around you agree. If they don't, then you just don't have it, no matter how much you wish you did. People with guns may be required to enforce those rights against those who disagree, but it certainly isn't necessary.
 
Cephus said:
It's only true so long as the particular society you are talking about accepts it as true. If you think you have a particular right, then you have it so long as those around you agree. If they don't, then you just don't have it, no matter how much you wish you did. People with guns may be required to enforce those rights against those who disagree, but it certainly isn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Without superior physical force you have no rights at all. Nobody does.
 
ecofarm said:
1. The rights are socially natural. This means more than one individual, an agreement. It does not mean what a man might "naturally" be capable of himself, such as property etc.
Click to expand...

Where do these Natural rights originate?

ecofarm said:
2. Inalienable does not mean inviolable. It means inseparable from being part of mankind. Natural rights are violated, yet they remain inalienable.
Click to expand...

According to whom?

ecofarm said:
3. It's self evident because one can ask the person next to them or any others (barring insane, it's sociological).





Life, expression and defense.

Would anyone like to add anything? Do we have objections.

That's the basis of the free world, politically. It's not a lie. One ins't super-smart and intellectually destroys the foundation. Natural rights exist.
Click to expand...

Morality and ethics are subjective. Rights are derived from morality and ethics. Therefore, rights are subjective. There are no rights in existence that were not invented by human beings. Such rights cannot be inherent since laws made by humans change and are altered by socioeconomics, religion, and other varying factors.
 
Riveroaks said:
Without superior physical force you have no rights at all. Nobody does.
Click to expand...

Sure you do. If everyone agrees, you have whatever rights everyone agrees to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom