Natural rights: Do they exist? Where do they come from? Are they relevant today?

simple thinking is a hypothetical or metaphorical devise, which is fluff and carries no practical information

Sure and the stalin purges were great idea incorporated into law

Still unconvincing

I have not yet seen any 'idea' that was an inalienable right, you example certainly is not.

So then based on yours and T's religion you have no problem with the stalin purges.

Oh? Who then?

Do you know what hypothesis means?

hy·poth·e·sis

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Philosophy: a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.


Sorry there is no such distinction.

Like I said, the version you are quoting applied to society, the version I quoted drivers to the psychology of the individual.
Nope I had that some 20 years before Al Gore invented the internet, got it from the library back when we used copy machines. Made a copy of the page for my own personal reference, wrote Durkheim on the back, had no clue someone on the internet would make such demands 40 years after the fact.

'Any' statement can be tested, you must be talking about a 'scientific hypothesis'?

Sure like a 100 years ago, if you have a point make it.

So then its our religion, I see no reason to value life outside religion, do you have any?

I guess we went to different schools.
It wasnt just Locke

You can read more here:

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) in England, and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) in France, were among the philosophers who developed a theory of natural rights based on rights to life, liberty, and property (later expanded by Jefferson to “the pursuit of happiness”) that individuals would have in ...

Natural Rights | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
https://www.mtsu.edu › first-amendment › article › natu...

Great so you understand my point.
Government is a nice idea thats not necessary.

So you believe laws of nature are unreasonable rights and rights created by ideas are fine?
Im not entirely sure how you are connecting the dots with this?

No one is regarding the inalienable rights as being engraven in the fabric of the universe, they are regarded as engraven in mankind.

So far I have read nothing from you that demonstrates inalienable rights do not exist, especially since so many countries have adopted these fundamental rights into worldwide universal law.

I do agree that deciding where one persons right begins and ends with respect to each other can be a difficult task, but that does nothing to eliminate 'Natural Rights'.

 

So then you agree with inalienable in principle, such that there is in fact a wall that exists between the government and the people?

So do I. I have yet to see any government that is not a victim of mission creep.

Yes like the institution of slavery?

Slavery was orderly, there was nothing disorderly about it.

Weak!
In America liberty which is in effect practicing your religion in the public arena, actually sets the limits for government. Quality is a valuation, as Durkheim pointed out valuation is religion.

Yes inalienable rights are part of the fabric of everyone fundamental 'personal' religion.

You are asking the impossible, I imagine there are literally literally, easily more than trillions of rights and you want me to narrow that down? That is why our inalienable rights are stated in the 'negative', and government author in the 'positive'.

Valuations are religious.
Yes all that falls under religion.
Yes I know, contrary to the founding principles of this country you firmly believe the government has the right to legislate 'EVERYTHING'!
Medically assisted abortions forced in a public facility by a conscientious objector probably falls under it, but the rest certainly do not.
We have democratic consensus that conscientious objectors rights not to perform abortions based on conscience is not relevant in the governments scheme of religion.

Oh yes, the overlord democratic parliament that makes all the rules for or in the aforementioned circumstances 'against' the will of the people.

So then its perfectly legitimate to conclude that the government can scientifically determine that the most expedient way to prevent starvation is to inject you with cyanide. Sure hyperbole but it proves a point.

You seem to be very confused about natural rights.
Natural rights are 'personal' and 'individual', their primary purpose is not to solve public controversies.
The purpose is to personal matters by a means of valuation.
You worship science and that fine, we all have our own source of religion, others do not, they have a different source of religion.
It is your religion that judges stalins purges wrong. In so far as science is concerned there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. (Back to Durkheim)

and wants often times are 'ideas' that become whimsical laws.

You have the right to take personal measures to avoid contracting covid which many people had prior to public knowledge of its existence,
You do not have the right to interfere with my life however to placate your fear.

1) You had your masks
2) Your government determined they would protect you.
3) You had your jabs
4) Your government determined they would protect you.
5) Most people still contracted covid
6) Oops

You mean this:
Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) States cannot interfere with the federal government when it uses its implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to further its express constitutional powers.

Hmm.... what part of the constitution did the people grant to the government the authority to legislate or abolish the rights that the people explicitly set aside and apart from government interference?

I must have missed that!

Wow, now thats a stretch! Thanks for the laugh though!
Oh btw all law has or is based upon all to often some metaphorical precedence from somewhere

The religiously defined murder is rebranded as homicide for instance, so it magically becomes secular. Oh the web the government weaves!

 

That is the possible or even highly probable results of your philosophy

You mean 'institutionalized' religion Im sure.

Yes everyone has a personal religion.

So then it runs contrary to your valuations, IOW: religious believes.

All arguments are grounded in semantics, I was responding to your dickering over it

 

Back to the implied "necessary and proper" issue; Where in the constitution did the people grant to the government the authority to interfere with the 'Reserved Rights' of the people that the government explicitly in black ink on white paper agreed 'NOT' to interfere with?

The Bill of Rights, makes no exceptions, there is not provisions or stipulations in the Bill of Rights granting ANY authority to interfere with our 'Reserved Rights' that I am aware.

In this country the people granted certain powers to the government not the other way around, you seem to have this all reversed somehow? Actually the government seems to have it reversed and you seem to have accepted it as normal and have granted them 'extraconstitutional' authority.

Mandated jabs, grossly exceed the 'legitimate' powers granted to the government by the people.

If mandated jabs are in fact constitutional then they can lawfully mandate cyanide, if they can concoct some scientific rationale to justify it then force it through under the guise of an emergency which is a well known and understood means for unwarranted 'government' force.

As a citizen Im part of the judicial, I judge the judges. What bothers me is that you seem to rely on them the final word and gospel on matters. There have been countless decisions that are made and overturned.

 

An apt description of your arguments so far.

No, they were terrible ideas put into law.

Check out the Declaration of Independence>

How did religion get into the act? I'm a Christian , Meagain is not. But our attitude toward Stalin's atrocities would be based on morality. I think Stalin's purges were horrific and morally reprehensible. That's why I supported the efforts of the U.S. and its allies to contain Soviet expansion, an enterprise that eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin isn't much better, and I support U.S. efforts to contain him, too. Which could never be done if we straitjacketed our government with eighteenth century notions of what a government can or can't do.

Do you know what hypothesis means?
hypothesis
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.[/QUOTE] The operative phrase is "as a starting point for investigation". Neither Locke no our Founding Fathers wee interested in further investigation. They held "these truths to be self-evident".

The version I am using is Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life., his only work on the subject of religion and one which is noted for the paramount role he gives to society. The paramount role of society is a perennial theme in all of Durkheim's work. So you're relying on a page which you supposedly copied back in the day and can't tell us where it came from. But you used your misinterpretation of it as the OP for a thread on "What is Religion?' that became the road to nowhere. I believe it. Thousands wouldn't. What does the passage say? Admittedly it is awkwardly worded, translated from French to English.
"Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.
Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action. Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.
On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathartic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.
This they share with ideological beliefs.. "
On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from their point of view. -Emile Durkheim
[/QUOTE] Note: Durkhiem is not attempting to provide a general definition of religion here, as he did in Elementary Forms of Religious life. He's simply comparing religion with ideology and philosoph. y I read this to mean that religion is like ideology, as opposed to science or philosophy in that it attaches more importance to values than cognitive content. Acceptance of religious belief requires commitment to action (putting the ideas into practice) instead of mere speculation. and provides meaning in two senses previously mentioned (maybe in the page before the one you copied. That's all. With that you were of an running, and what you did with it was way beyond what the passage is about. You essentially invoked Durkheim to lend gravitas to an argument about religion and natural rights that, as yet, remains incomprehensible. By not remembering where the page came from, you make it impossible for a reader to see the context from which it was lifted, F-

No, I'm talking about hypotheses according to your own definition:a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Neither Locke nor Jefferson wee interested in testing their propositions, which, as Jefferson said, were "self -evident". And not all statements can be tested. Many are unfalsifiable.

Actually, it was over 300 years ago. That's the age of the theory you've been defending. It was adopted by Jefferson almost a century later. But the point is, it was the source of the theory you've been spouting, so I thought you's know all about it.

Well, I consider myself religious, but your statement sounds a tad fanatical. I find life generally interesting engaging , and I'm grateful to God for it. I think it would be valuable on its own.

Way ahead if you. I've read 'em all and discussed them earlier.(See post #3). But the one Jefferson directly borrowed from was Locke. So there!

Any system where formal or informal authority is exercised is government. And I really wouldn't want to go back to the caves. Hunting and gathering isn't my style. But you've finally come out as an anarchist!

I have some familiarity with anarchy, having attended numerous gatherings of the Rainbow Family of the Living Light. Even there, though, there is informal authority, albeit minimal. The Council, to which anyone (including the Forest Service, although they never participate) can belong, is the nominal source of this. All decisions are supposedly made by Council consensus, although there is some disagreement about what that means. In practice, decisions are made by the volunteer "focalizers" who run the kitichens, medical centers, childcare, and other functions; by the elders, long -time members of personal authority or charisma whose authority lies with the beholder; and of course, the Shanti Sena, rough and ready enforcers who are their own "family" and who sometimes make up the rules they enforce. It works, after a fashion, which is impressive, considering that thousands of people are sometimes involved. But it is limited to annual and regional gatherings whose function is to gather periodically. I'm skeptical that it could work for a large, on-going society.

Ordinarily, (s)he who asserts must prove. I've never asserted that inalienable rights don't exist. You've been asserting that they do. Prove it! Those human rights you're referring to are now embodied in international law ascribed to by signatory nations. In that sense , they have legal force.

I'm taking a break . Meagain can have you for awhile.

 

What is Religion?

The wording is not awkward in fact to the contrary its 'precise' and descriptive and to the point leaving little to no room for misinterpretation.

 

Oh my! Quick grab a cross! ✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞✞ Evil anarchist at large! Hide the women and and children, barricade the doors and windows!
Wear your masks!
ha!
Sorry not in the sense I am sure you interpret and present it.

 

They cant exist if Natural Rights do not exist since that is what they are based on.

On the other hand admittedly they have added rights to the inalienable list that in fact are not. Works great to blur the vision of the public which is the purpose of government now days.

 

Not true, again that your personal opinion, again misguided.
No government is formed between student and teacher.

 

Quote mining again I see.

Its also a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

 

I was being facetious, I meant I 'read' it about 100 years ago. lol
that will probably make more sense to you now.

 

Quote mining? It's the definition you provided!

Its also a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.[/QUOTE]So? My point is that there's nothing empirical about Locke's theory, even though he was an ardent empiricist.

 

The teacher has authority over the classroom and all the students in it. (S)he has the power to assign grades, which can affect their careers. Definitions are not true or false, only more or less useful.

 

...

 

huh?
Introduction to Philosophical Semantics

ditto for mine

Unless you are completely devoid of morals I would disagree.

that can only be true if you are using the narrowest definition of 'religion' something divine, and we all know that we can have religion without any divine intervention.

,,,

I used teacher student singular not classroom.

So? My point is that there's nothing empirical about Locke's theory, even though he was an ardent empiricist.[/QUOTE]

Since when is it required to be empirical?
Yes of the 2 definitions I posted you picked the wrong one of course.

 

An I used the plural "all" students , which would include individual trouble makers. The student "singular" better watch her step or she'll be repeating the course next semester.

Not "required" at all, but it helps if you want to be taken seriously. these days. Anyhow, that was your term in describing Locke's theory, rmember?

The "wrong" one? You're funny

 

Yeh forgot about classroom I see!
I never put it in an institutional setting, that strawman detour is all on you.

Ah yes the club em till they bleed and they still dont get it mentality, yikes

You dont take anything I put up seriously even if I provide references.

How about the one inapplicable to my point?