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

Nice dose of circular reasoning!

 

I don't care what your religion is or your attitude toward yourself. Semite or not, your invocation of a Hamilton-Rothschild connection is disturbing. I don't know how deeply into this you are, but what has been called "the most insidious Rothschild conspiracy theory" relating says Alexander Hamilton was really a Jew named Alexander Levine and a close associate or member of (by marriage) the Rothschild family. There is no evidence for this at all.

You may not have said"conspiracy", but you endorsed some of the most virulent ones: 9/11, Covid , the Deep State, and now the Rothschild-Hamilton connection.

I didn't cry "anti-Semite", I asked you if you were one--a reasonable question after you brought up the Rothschild conspiracy--one of the oldest conspiracy theories still floating around on the internet.

Likewise, I'm sure. I do it to kill time while waiting for an intelligent person like Meagain to contribute.

If "overlords" means governments, pretty much, although I think the idea of natural rights can be useful in guiding out attitudes and voting behavior towards government.

The governments' duty is to do both.

 

dont tell me not to tell you what I have never told you in the first place lol

 

It should be!
Hamilton was granted a patroonship, and just by magical coincidence set up the very thing the colonists fought to get away from, a central bank. I found that disturbing too.
Im a JAP

 

Not at all. That is positive -- adopted, ratified, and enforceable by the courts.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/naturalistic-fallacy-definition-examples.htmllaw

But there's a distinction between blind faith and faith that is based on evidence. What is the evidence that nature has conferred rights on anyone?

 

You seem to be taking personally a remark by a writer I quoted. I doubt that he had you in mind. lol

 

I find your logical leap to be disturbing. I doubt that a central bank was "the very thing the colonists fought to get away from" (all of them?) and you haven't shown a connection between Hamilton and the Rothschilds.

 

Yes you inferred it in the form of a question.
Are you a paid poster?
Jtrig maybe?
Government troll maybe?
Snowflake in a fantasy world.

Thats a poison the well (ad hom) fallacy


'Poisoning the Well' Logical Fallacy Examples - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › English › English Grammar
Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy (a type of ad hominem argument) in which a person attempts to place an opponent in a position from which he or she is unable to reply.

Examples and Observations
"Another technique by which the personality of a speaker is sometimes discredited is called poisoning the well. An enemy, when he poisons a well, ruins the water; no matter how good or how pure the water was, it is now tainted and hence unusable. When an opponent uses this technique, he casts such aspersions on a person that the person cannot possibly recover and defend himself without making matters much worse.


CITY COUNCILMAN: The Mayor's a very good talker. Yes, talk he can do . . . and do very well. But when it comes time for action, that's a different matter.

How can the mayor respond? If he remains silent, he runs the risk of appearing to accept the councilman's criticisms. But if he stands up and defends himself, then he is talking; and the more he talks, the more he appears to be confirming the accusations. The well has been poisoned, and the mayor is in a difficult position." (Robert J. Gula, Nonsense. Axios, 2007)

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Poisoning_the_well

Not at all, I never claimed a conspiracy took place.
this is all about what seems to be more of the same underhanded debate tactics I have witnessed previously from you.

Is it?
Got proof?

 

Oh well then its not clear where a writer leaves off and you begin.
Since you enjoy accusing me of so many old worn out negative pejoratives, why would I think differently.
They dont work btw in the mind of any critical thinker I have ever talked with, but apparently it makes you feel superior

 

There see!
I didnt cry: you are a paid poster,
or Jtriger,
or Government troll,
or a Snowflake living in a fantasy world, did I?

See, just like you, I simply asked a simple question!

I could dive into the mud with you I suppose, but I prefer not to if it can be avoided.

You should consider cleaning up your tactics.

 

Uh, you're proving my point. Now I'm part of the conspiracy!

You poisoned your own well when you brought up the Rothschilds.

You clearly insinuated it.
]

You prove my point. Now I've apparently become part of your conspiracy theories.

You poisoned your own well by bringing up the Rothschilds.

Opinion | Time to Close Down the Elon Musk Circus
Elon Musk Is Crazy: 10 Outrageous Comments Made By The Tesla & SpaceX CEO
11 Weird and Upsetting Facts About Elon Musk

What conspiracy theories have the Rothschild family been the subject of?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hschilds-are-a-symptom-the-problem-is-deeper/
The Story Behind The Most Insidious Rothschild Dynasty Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds are still going strong on Twitter

Ordinarily, the writer begins and ends with the quotation marks.

 

And now I'm exiting this exchange,which had clearly become the route to crazytown--unless some intelligent contributor like Meagain shows up to advance the discussion. The topic of natural rights is interesting and important, and would make a useful subject for discussion. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to focus, but go off on irrelevant tangents. After 195 posts, you have yet to address intelligently the question do natural rights exist? A string of definitions and snarky asides don't count. Sayonara!

 

Math for instance assigns abstractions called numbers to real life objects which bridges to the abstract to the material.

8 just says qualities, not underfined qualities as you paraphrased it.

That has to do with natural laws. Thou shalt no murder jerks no matter how much they deserve it.
Yes I believe you could classify valuations (religion) as mostly derived from bridging the metaphysical with corporeal.

These would be the 'color' of the rights.

Rights by birth.

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › Natural_rights_and_le...

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). The concept of positive law is related to the concept of legal rights.

Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy,[2] and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible,[3] and then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was us


I have the right to life! Why because I said so! I hereby declare shyone has the right to life. Anyone want to argue that shyone does not have the right to life?

AFAIK there are no natural rights granted by the government in the constitution/nill of rights.

The only natural rights that I know are those reserved by the people, for the people that limits government actions. The government agreed that we the people have reserved rights, the rights we chose to reserve are inalienable, 'purposefully' stated in the negative sense which is boundless uunlik positive law used for the government that the courts flipped into negative law reversing the whole process.

 

I was going to bow out, but the fallacies are too blatant and painful to tolerate. Once again, Shy confuses definitions with arguments. Because she can find in wikipedia or some other such source a description of what natural rights are supposed to be, she concludes they must exist. But the sources are not providing reasoned arguments establishing that such rights exist. They are simply explaining what believers think they are. Then we have the absurdity that someone has a natural right simply by saying so. I could claim I have the right to Elon Musk's fortune, but it wouldn't get me far. When it comes to the right to life, that's one on which there's much broader consensus as a value. but many societies including ours recognize the death penalty for certain crimes. Capital punishment is a controversial subject, of course, but it is most effective when argued in the context of what laws should be adopted or what policies should b followed rather than claims that it violates natural law. If we look at humans from head to toe, it's hard to find natural rights on their bodies, as invisible attributes or possessions accompanying personhood. We have such rights to the extent that .most people in a given society believe we do and translate that belief into positive law. There is considerable disagreement about where life begins and ends, whether or not the right to it starts in the womb, and whether or not there is a right to die, based on a person's right to make decisions about his/her own body. As for rights reserved by the people, those rest on language in the Tenth Amendment (positive law), which we rely on the courts to interpret, or in the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence revolution. to vindicate. I think we all can recognize from the Jan. 6 abortive insurrection the danger of the latter course when an ignorant mob gets it into its head that it has a right to do so.

Beyond that, is there anything left of the doctrine of natural rights? I think there is. ;
(1) H.L.A. Hart, a crusty legal positivist, argues in "Are There Any Natural Rights?' that "if there are any moral rights at all, it follows that there is at least one natural right, the equal right of all men to be free." He argues that this means, in practice, that limiting the freedom of another person requires justification. Philosophical Review 64 (2):175-191 (1955)
(2) Ronald Dworkin, in Taking Rights Seriously, argues on ethical grounds that if a society takes rights seriously, every individual should be treated with the same amount of respect and attention as everyone else. ronald dworkin taking rights seriously youtube video - Yahoo Video Search Results
(3) John Rawls, A theory of Justice. I mentioned before the contractarian theory of John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. Rawls defines justice as fairness, and to get at what is fair, he resorts to the Enlightenment device of Social Contract. If rational people in a metaphorical state of nature decided on the ground rules for a future society without knowing what position they would occupy in it, including race, gender, sexual orientation, income level, etc., what ground rules would they adopt? He thinks two:

• "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all".
• "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they (a)work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and are (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunit.y rawls a theory of justice summary - Yahoo Video Search Results

(4) W. G. Runciman, Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, adding to Rawls model the provision of a safety net, which people setting up the ground rules of a future society would presumably adopt to prevent themselves from perishing.

Note that all of these theories are theories of morality designed to guide leaders and citizens as to how just society should operate; and none of them specifically claims that a govrnment is illegitimate if it falls short o perfection with rgard to these rights.

 

I posted several, here is a very simply one for you: You have the right to breathe. Not in any law book. Do you agree that you have the right to breathe, or are you willing to accept a law that says after upi read this you must put your neck inside strong hands and be choked to death? Maybe for a show to demonstrate your point, that Natural rights dont exist. that is your argument is it not?

Since you are unhappy with all the definitions and arguments I already posted here are one or 2 more for you to ignore.

What are Natural Rights? [2023] - Diversity for Social Impact
https://diversity.social › natural-rights

Apr 5, 2021 — In general, natural rights are moral rights that people would have no matter what their legal rights were and even if there were no government ...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYyP2Io8v8AhVhk4kEHQyUBGQQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights&usg=AOvVaw2WXpOwvXm2GUYYpNvMjIiM

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYyP2Io8v8AhVhk4kEHQyUBGQQFnoECA8QAw&url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/natural--rights&usg=AOvVaw2SQLsPaovOZgz73zqmWdcQ

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYyP2Io8v8AhVhk4kEHQyUBGQQFnoECFAQAQ&url=https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/natural-rights/&usg=AOvVaw1Q9bEandZ1n6GWz_2Bk1yB

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYyP2Io8v8AhVhk4kEHQyUBGQQFnoECC0QAQ&url=https://study.com/academy/lesson/natural-rights-definition-theory-examples.html&usg=AOvVaw2HBOHSesrFY2rNpEFXuw5d

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYyP2Io8v8AhVhk4kEHQyUBGQQFnoECCYQAQ&url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-rights&usg=AOvVaw2wFCk8KJ5NyTntv2MfdVfP

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjC2IaqpMv8AhVArokEHc03AAg4ChAWegQIEBAB&url=https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/politics/foundations-of-american-democracy/natural-rights/&usg=AOvVaw1ojWCskskI1urzBAIj0G82

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjC2IaqpMv8AhVArokEHc03AAg4ChAWegQICRAB&url=https://www.thepeople.org/blog-civics-u/natural-rights&usg=AOvVaw1of1NBhAcSBV0DhWz7eYue

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjC2IaqpMv8AhVArokEHc03AAg4ChAWegQIERAB&url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/natural-rights-liberalism-from-locke-to-nozick/introduction/611FB58FC3621A6875975FD1D3FB38BA&usg=AOvVaw34fnGTPtAM8ylEpLp35M0I

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjC2IaqpMv8AhVArokEHc03AAg4ChAWegQIBRAB&url=https://philosophynow.org/issues/21/What_is_natural_about_Natural_Rights&usg=AOvVaw3vhc6IOHl1GuFMCMCBPwax

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjC2IaqpMv8AhVArokEHc03AAg4ChAWegQIDhAB&url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/collection/natural-law-and-natural-rights&usg=AOvVaw2-JH4Y7gLbpHd0JA0KD3rh

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaq7zLpMv8AhWmkYkEHbaXCNI4FBAWegQIBRAB&url=https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/adults/ethics/workshop5/191882.shtml&usg=AOvVaw1nUzh1HhOD8LHFtodnn3yP

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaq7zLpMv8AhWmkYkEHbaXCNI4FBAWegQIAhAB&url=https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/&usg=AOvVaw1rRg_gUz7llpYIIDKwBggj

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaq7zLpMv8AhWmkYkEHbaXCNI4FBAWegQIAhAB&url=https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/&usg=AOvVaw1rRg_gUz7llpYIIDKwBggj

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaq7zLpMv8AhWmkYkEHbaXCNI4FBAWegQIBBAB&url=https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/natural-rights&usg=AOvVaw3so2KlsW2pmMjw0EwTcbuN

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaq7zLpMv8AhWmkYkEHbaXCNI4FBAWegQIBhAB&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1005&context=njihr&usg=AOvVaw3fVQ-TOCpf5QDU09p_BiMs

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaq7zLpMv8AhWmkYkEHbaXCNI4FBAWegQIFBAB&url=https://constitutionus.com/constitution/rights/what-are-natural-rights/&usg=AOvVaw2xXVn-NPaFFg98IQ3FixWb

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiaq7zLpMv8AhWmkYkEHbaXCNI4FBAWegQICBAB&url=https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/social-science/government/concepts/natural-rights&usg=AOvVaw3vrARyCD3s3SNsZDVGylIm

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiylaqipcv8AhVeg4kEHU3xD-Y4HhAWegQICxAB&url=https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/natural-law/&usg=AOvVaw1SoYEQ0VUjZqUXGEIzFI20

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiylaqipcv8AhVeg4kEHU3xD-Y4HhAWegQIDBAB&url=https://www.cato.org/commentary/american-understanding-natural-rights&usg=AOvVaw37rv0lZFAHiZTOtbzbbpM2

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiylaqipcv8AhVeg4kEHU3xD-Y4HhAWegQIChAB&url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100225417&usg=AOvVaw1pZMqQERKY4EAYMyIVfD_d

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNyPLzpcv8AhVGg4kEHUbpADo4KBAWegQICxAB&url=https://www.gwirf.org/inherent-natural-rights/&usg=AOvVaw39MlXTGxhWQdl8BcBVzjoI

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNyPLzpcv8AhVGg4kEHUbpADo4KBAWegQIDBAB&url=https://www.myaccountingcourse.com/accounting-dictionary/natural-rights&usg=AOvVaw0KY912TGjmdII6TXZzts95

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs0rWepsv8AhXZjYkEHQJ8Dcc4MhAWegQIBhAB&url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0449-9&usg=AOvVaw2CUIR1xtJPoPXebMYEyIhb

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs0rWepsv8AhXZjYkEHQJ8Dcc4MhAWegQICBAB&url=https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Mizzou_Academy/AP_US_Government_and_Politics/02%3A_Constitutional_Foundations/2.01%3A__Natural_Rights_and_the_Declaration_of_Independence&usg=AOvVaw3cyDVyRwuMaoejpPlkE5dd

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs0rWepsv8AhXZjYkEHQJ8Dcc4MhAWegQIAxAB&url=https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp&usg=AOvVaw2PPzwPTf3WGCTFEG2zVqxN

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjs0rWepsv8AhXZjYkEHQJ8Dcc4MhAWegQIBRAB&url=https://www.landandliberty.net/natural-rights-and-duties/&usg=AOvVaw1fr9zl1UkR_3GbUwZ4HIJN

Redirect Notice_

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiU_-KMp8v8AhVNkokEHQ4TCoY4PBAWegQIAhAB&url=https://jackmillercenter.org/fci-resource/natural-rights/&usg=AOvVaw1mWQNVQVPbTJboeCFYqHEa

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjOndPRp8v8AhUEjIkEHdKNArw4RhAWegQIBRAB&url=https://lawliberty.org/natural-rights-and-the-declaration/&usg=AOvVaw3kd-pWHjuNwlhxRLm589L5

 

So, if there is a law that you have to get choked to death, simply because some state decided the population is too high, then I'm sure you will willingly go along with it first thing tomorrow right?
Which is it, you would do it willingly, yes or no?

Lets start there! Yes or no, and if no why not?

 

So you want a theocracy?

oopsie!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So you think 'powers' are "Natual Rights" I take it?

 

I thought you were getting tired of having to be constantly corrected, but it seems I could make a living out of it!

 

.??? Non sequitor

oopsie!

No. I think they are positive legal authority and ability to take action.

 

Yoru response doesnt make sense you know.

So then you think that the state is all powerful, that the people gave it the authority to do whatever it wants including burning the Bill of Rights if they want to take action.

Whats the difference between power and natural rights?

Do you have the natural right to breath or are you going to dodge the question?