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

The whole point of course is that the quantity 5 is purely abstract, you can demonstrate the abstract quantity of five by touching each one of your fingers on your left hand one by one.
You can count 5 question marks ????? on your screen.

Life, the right to breath.
Do you feel you have no natural right to breath?

They are somewhat synonymous

Im using it in a nonphysical/physical sense

Variants or subsets, yes

to breathe

You hav e the right to life in any society you are born in, simply by being human.
Society has the obligation to respect the fact that you are alive and do nothing to extinguish your life, they are not expected to insure you stay alive. That is the extent for natural, social begins at right to food etc.

 

I gave you a whole page full of reasoned argument citations HERE
You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact.

You are simply explaining what nonbelievers think they are.

They do!
I hereby declare that I have the natural right to breath and if you tried to prevent me from exercising my natural right to breath I promise things would not go well for you, because you would force me into a position where I would have to exercise my natural right to defend my natural right to breathe.
Your claims defy logic and reason!

There you go, from wrong to over the deep end looney! bravo.
Elon Musk has the natural right to defend his natural right to his personal property.
Deciding to steal Elon Musks money is not a right by any definition outside complete lunacy.

Yes and as I have shown in the religion thread that you derailed ny constantly pushing everything out of context and refusing to address any issues on point, that is a religious valuation.

Yes mobs can violate your natural rights.

personhood? So now you want to move the goal posts to administrative incorporation?

FALSE, you are just beating on your agenda drum since the opposite is true as demonstrated by a whole page of citations I posted from sources worldwide state that is not true.

For the state life begins at birth, when they can register you in their club.

Yes I commented on that nonsense demonstrating that you do not know the difference between a natural right and a 'power'. The bill of rights of the federal constitution can only be accessed by you through the 14th amendment under the government, which of course completely destroyed its sole purpose, which was to place people over the government.

So in your world you think someone being choked will just lay there and die, mother nature wont take over causing you to defend your life? Society notwithstanding. Seriously?

 

I dont see how society can guarantee any of that, afaik they can only support it.
Society as in government does have the obligation to uphold its contracts, like the Bill of Rights, but instead they usurped them with the 14th amendment.

 

See you dont even know what a conspiracy is.
A conspiracy is when 2 or more commit a crime.
I never said a crime was committed you did!
You are the one insisting its a conspiracy not me.
Hitler arrested Rothschild to help offset damages he caused to Germany.
Was that a crime, I dont know.
I do know that if someone wrecked your car you would want them to pay you back as well.

Baron Rothschild Switzerland After Release from Vienna Prison
https://www.jta.org › archive › baron-rothschild-switzer...
Baron Louis de Rothschild, head of the Austrian branch of the famous banking family, who was arrested by the Nazi authorities shortly after annexation of ..

Thats is not a conspiracy claim as you pretend.
Neither is it a 'theory' as you claim.
He was physically arrested, which I do agree that arrests typically take place after a crime has been committed however it only takes 1 person to commit a crime, and that is not a conspiracy if one person commits a crime.

You brought Hamilton into the picture. Like I originally pointed out Hamilton was given a patroonship and started the first national bank against the better judgement of the other founders.

and the beat goes on.

Constant personal attacks against me merely trumpets the fact that you cant defend your claims.
You even claim you are part of some conspiracy, and thats right back to looneyville stretch of the imagination.

I LMAO when you accused me, a JAP and proud of it, of being an antisemite!
(for those that do not know, a JAP is a spoiled rotten Jewish American Princess )

 

Here is some more on this:

Metaphysical - Longer definition: Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. Metaphysical studies generally seek to explain inherent or universal elements of reality which are not easily discovered or experienced in our everyday life. As such, it is concerned with explaining the features of reality that exist beyond the physical world and our immediate senses. Metaphysics, therefore, uses logic based on the meaning of human terms, rather than on a logic tied to human sense perception of the objective world. Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.

Metaphysical ideas, because they are not based on direct experience with material reality, are often in conflict with the modern sciences. Beginning with the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, experiments with, and observations of, the world became the yardsticks for measuring truth and reality. Therefore, our contemporary valuation of scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge helps explain the controversy and skepticism concerning metaphysical claims, which are considered unverifiable by modern science.

Glossary Definition: Metaphysical


The Theory of Abstract Objects

The Theory of Abstract Objects - The Metaphysics Research Lab
https://mally.stanford.edu › theory
The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, ...
‎Metaphysics vs. Physics · ‎Objectives of the Theory · ‎Distinction Underlying the...

The equations at the top of this page are the two most important principles of the theory of abstract objects. The first principle expresses the existence conditions for abstract objects; the second expresses their identity conditions. In this document, we try to give you some idea of what these principles say.

Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in various ways. It is part of our understanding of science that natural laws exist (even if no one were around to discover them) and that the states of affairs that obtain in the natural world are governed by such laws. As part of our scientific investigations, we presuppose that objects behave in certain ways because they have certain properties, and that natural laws govern not just actual objects that have certain properties, but any physically possible object having those properties. So metaphysics investigates numbers, laws, properties, possibilities, etc., as entities in their own right, since they seem to be presupposed by our very understanding of the scientific enterprise. The theory of abstract objects attempts to organize these objects within a systematic and axiomatic framework. It would be a mistake to think that a theory postulating abstract objects is incompatible with our theories of natural science, which seem to presuppose that the only things that exist are the things governed by our true scientific theories. To see that the theory of abstract objects is compatible with natural scientific theories, we only have to think of abstract objects as possible and actual property-patterns.
The Theory of Abstract Objects - Metaphysics Research Labs - Stanford edu

I think that is the answer to the whole thread!

Emphatic YES 'Natural laws exist', and it should go without saying that if natural laws exist, natural obligations exist, and likewise corresponding natural rights.

 

Thanks for this.
In general, government serves the function of doing needed things people can't otherwise do for themselves, or doing it more efficiently: building roads, keeping the peace,delivering the mail, providing for national defense, etc. Of course, there's a perennial debate over whether or not it would be better to privatize such activities (libertarianism), or to put ones that are currently private under public ownership (socialism). The question is how best to conceptualized this. Natural rights does this by attributing to individuals certain "rights" outside of government that can't be taken away by government. What I'm trying to do is to get to the bottom of what, if any, those are.

I've argued that governments are instituted in fulfilling the basic functions of government, which include protecting the general health, safety, welfare and morals of the community. (Those general functions are acknowledged in the law for state governments and have developed by judicial interpretation for the national government.) When govenments stray from those tasks or push too far in trying to achieve them, they get a natural reaction I think that recent developments in China and Iran illustrate what can happen when governments push its citizens too far--encroaching on those lower rungs of Maslow's hierarchy. People in those countries have shown real courage in defying governments that respond to protestors with torture and death. In the case of China, the government has backed off. That's remarkable. Kudos to the demonstrators. We can only hope the Russians will someday be able to get rid of the current kleptocrat and warmonger who is causing them so much pain.

My problem with social contract/natural rights formulation, including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which people are supposedly endowed with by God, is that it is both vague and absolutist, placing ideal expectations on governments which none can completely meet to the liking of all the individuals they govern. "Life" is a matter of current debate by the "Right to life" movement, which seems more concerned about life before birth than afterwards."Liberty" is a concept that is steadily evolving since the time when Jefferson who owned 600 slaves penned the word. And the pursuit of happiness? A guy in my community tried to use that one as a defense in a pot charge, without much success. Fact is, the Declaration of Independence in not law enforceable in courts. It's a declaration of ideals and aspirations that serves a useful rhetorical function as just that, but is not a source of absolutes. "The people' did not get together at our constitutional convention to enter into a contract. "The people" doesn't exist as an entity, and never did. The Constitution was actually the product of a breach of the Articles of Confederation, which did not provide for its replacement by the band of elites who gathered in Philadelphia because they found the Articles inadequate for their needs. They spoke in the name of "We the People", and got the document ratified by hardball tactics such as locking the doors of assembly rooms to that dissenters couldn't escape and avoid a quorum.

Although government tyranny is certainly a problem, so are mob rule, vigilantism, and insurrection. As Jefferson noted in his Declaration, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed." So far, so good. In the case of the American revolutionaries,the big issue was "taxation without representation". The revolutionary leaders justified their decision to revolt by invoking John Locke's version of natural rights theory, which was going out of style in England but still influential on the frontiers of the empire.

Where I differ from ShyOne is that she seems to think our government is illegitimate and has been so for hundreds of years, starting at least as early as 1819 when the Supreme Court upheld powers of the federal government which helped us grow into a great nation. Our government certainly has it problems, but relative to other governments in the real world, I think it compares favorably. There's plenty of room for improvement, but I think this is best done in the context of the available institutions of our representative government: voting, lobbying, and litigating in court. In a country as polarized as ours, it is meaningless and dangerous to talk about a broken social contract with "the people".
There do seem to be natural limits to the authority of government, identified by philosophers like Fuller, Rawls, Hart, Dworkin, and Runciman. It would be useful to explore these. But none of them viewed natural rights and the social contract as the metaphysical absolutes Shy seems to .

 

You are using the definition of criminal conspiracy, narrowly defined. More broadly, in political discourse, it means "a secret plan by a group to do something harmful: "--as in 9/11, installing microchips in Covid innoculations, or plotting to dominate the world's economy for personal gain.I gave you several examples of "conspiracy" used in conjunction with the Rothschilds. I didn't make up that usage. You're rally reaching for something to make an issue of.
Hitler arrested Rothschild to help offset damages he caused to Germany.
Was that a crime, I dont know.
I do know that if someone wrecked your car you would want them to pay you back as well.

Trouble is, while that particular incident you mention may have been about a charge of criminal conspiracy, it's not the one mentioned in the sources I cited. No relevance at all.

I mentioned Hamilton as the author of some of the Federalist papers. You dragged in the Rothschilds.

You can dish it out , butr can't take it. You ( facietiously I hope) asked me
"Are you a paid poster?
Jtrig maybe?
Government troll maybe?
Snowflake in a fantasy world"
I think that that qualifies as a personal attack, and it was you, not I , who said it. You're really confused.

I didn't "accuse' you of being one. I asked if you were one, after you brought up the Rothschilds and the "most insidious" conspiracy story The Story Behind The Most Insidious Rothschild Dynasty Conspiracy Theory

Whatever you are, you certainly aren't a ShyOne!!!

 

My mama told me"you can't win and argument with an ignoramus. My mama was wise. I'm takin' her advice!

 

Yeh thats the way it usually goes when you respond to my posts with your strawmen

Depends on the company I am with, typically I am quite shy but when the momentum of my BS meter needle flies to the red so hard that it doesnt stop wrapping itself around the peg, that changes things.

Well based on your posts I have to ask are you a snowflake government troll?

 

So then if someone tries to choke you, you wont try to stay alive.
yes or no?

 

My rights to free spech is a natural right.

 

I basically agree with everything you said. They are ideas, although in Durkheim's conceptualization, more like ideology and religion than philosophy in giving rise to emotions and actions. I might add, though, that there are less metaphysical , more sophisticated institutionalist or functionalist versions of natural law and natural rights theory that provide guides for evaluating government performance. Of course,, "law" and "rights" are just words which we can use any way we want--as names for our pet dogs and canaries if we so choose. But sociologists tell us that there are certain functions that have to be performed if the societies are to survive and thrive. "According to functionalism, the government has four main purposes: planning and directing society, meeting social needs, maintaining law and order, and managing international relations. Functionalists view government and politics as, inter alia, a way to enforce norms and regulate conflict."What is the functionalist perspective on government? – ProfoundQa The "enforcing norms and regulating conduct" part is done by the subsystem known as "law", which Fuller defines as "the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules." The Morality of Law. By this view, not everything that calls itself "government" or "law" meets the minimal requirements of those terms and don't need to be regarded with the same reverence or respect we ordinarily give to the activities that are worthy of them. As Saint Augustine put it, "governments" without justice are essentially bands of robbers, and empires without justice are piracies. Fuller uses Nazi Germany as an example.For all its talk about "law and order" it was a pretty lawless society, with secret "laws", ex post facto "laws", "laws' that were impossible to enforce, "laws' that were aimed at particular groups instead of society in general, etc. He says that when a system like that reaches a certain point, it has "laws' in name only and should be viewed as such. Dworkin makes a similar argument with regard to rights.(Taking Rights Seriously) If we do take rights seriously, we need to acknowledge "the right of each individual to the equal respect and concern of those who govern him." Dworlkin taking rights seriously - Yahoo Video Search Results Rawls even brings in the Social Contract, as a heuristic device for getting at what would be fair to every one by asking what ground rules they'd probably agree to under conditions of radical ignorance. Rawls a Theory of Justtice Youtube - Yahoo Video Search Results are admittedly intellectual perspectives and not the sort of thing that rallies people in the streets, as opposed to academics at conferences, but I think they have some validity as perspectives which people can use in deciding how their governments and laws measure up. Yahoo Video Search Results far, with all its deficiencies from the standpoint of perfection, I don't think our government is close to not fulfilling its basic minimal requirements.

 

You didnt answer the question.

If someone is choking you will you or will you not 'instinctively' defend yourself?
yes or no?

If someone is choking you in an attempt to murder you and you have a gun pointed at their head are you justified in pulling the trigger?
yes or no?

 

You dont seem to be knowledgeable as to what that minimal requirement is supposed to be.
I didnt see anything what so ever about 'Natural Rights' in all that gaslighting.