15

Natural Rights: Why do they matter?

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
86 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Natural Rights: Why do they matter?

Natural rights are corollary to your existence, requisite for protecting existence, and the foundation upon which all other rights are derived.

These rights are expressed in the Declaration of Independence. “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, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …”

Rand wrote in “The Virtue of Selfishness” that this “...laid down the principle in the words ‘…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...’ (That)This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose; to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence. Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was to protect man from criminals---and the Constitution was written to protect man from government.” She also wrote, “The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.” “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Moral law is all that entails man’s right to exist.

John Locke wrote of the fundamental principle of natural rights. Life, liberty and property were rights inherent in your being. These rights are universal and no one has the right to take them. You have a right to exist and the corollary is so do others. You have the right to defend yourself, to the fruits of your labor, to liberty and must grant the same to others. No one has the right to deny your liberty or property without reprisal. Only you can forfeit these rights by an act which violates another. William Blackstone wrote, “... no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture.”

Locke asserted that governments were instituted by man for a primary purpose; that it was morally obligated to serve people, by protecting life, liberty and property, for without these protections man was no better off than he was in a state of nature. Man would be at the mercy of every brute. This is the impetus for communities; for the mutual benefit of numbers, for defending natural rights, corollary to your right to exist.

The basic premise precedes Locke. He expanded the archaic notions of a “state of nature” and a tradition among the ancient civilizations that rulers can’t legitimately do whatever they want, as basic moral laws apply to all. He proclaimed that “Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” And, man should “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.” As for property he said, “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” In another passage he wrote, “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” Private property is essential for life and Liberty. People in nature were there own rulers and held individual sovereignty. Thus legitimate Government “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He also wrote, rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.” To do otherwise was to render man no better off than he was when in a state of nature. Man should not enter into or create a government that reduces rights more than absolutely necessary or it would be a diminution of the rights retained by man in his natural state. The only legitimate occasion where man should relinquish his rights should be voluntarily, in pursuit of justice; namely the independent execution of justice so as to avoid unusual cruelty and avoid mistaken, unjust and biased, partial judgment. This should be granted to an impartial arbiter.

Locke expressed the view that if government did not fulfill these obligations then people would be living under tyranny and they would have the legitimate right to rebel. Although in Locke’s day he was dealing with monarchies he expressed these premises universally saying “Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” This was so dangerous in his time, authorship for his Second Treatise was revealed till his death.

His words along with those of Algernon Sidney greatly influenced America’s founding fathers; Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Mason, etc. were among them.

“Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the rights of others.” In correlation and distinction to this he said, “Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”- Paine

“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”- Jefferson

James Madison, attempted to protect all natural rights not enumerated in primary authorship of the Ninth amendment.

It has been said that “you have the natural right to be eaten by a savage beast.” You also have the natural right to use your superior intelligence, defend yourself, fashion a weapon, kill and eat the beast for supper. Whether you call them Natural, Unalienable, or God given is inconsequential, at least in relation to how rights are mutually respected, so long as you recognize and respect them.

Respectfully,
O.A.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago
    This reasoning is a stark contrast to the progressive perversion of "rights" in language. To suggest that natural rights are negative rights. But "positive" rights are things such as right to healthcare, free education, equal pay etc.
    Recently, I posted a pro-firearm sentiment by Maya Angelou on FB. A friend responded that my right to own firearms violated her right to feel safe.
    This is part of how the progs win a propaganda war; for instance charity is now "give-back." Even Marx stole much of the language of Locke with no intention of maintaining the reasoning. In fact, Rousseau is often taught alongside Locke as if they are similar in their philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 10 months ago
      Context dropping and concept swapping are the tools of confusion used by progressives.
      Rights are rights to action for your own personal benefit not at the expense of another PHYSICALLY SPEAKING.
      The "right to feel" isn't a right. It's non-objective and can't be protected under the law.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 10 months ago
      I like the distinction between natural rights being negative, something that we already have naturally (e.g., life), which it is wrong for people to take away. And very funny about the firearms; I would point out to your FB friend that bearing arms is part of my right to feel safe (and be safe).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago
    Thank O.A. :)
    Now, how do we get the masses to give a shit about the importance of natural rights....? :(
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 10 months ago
      IMHO, things have to get worse before the masses will even consider the importance of natural rights. Too many have no clue what we have already lost and will not see the light until more natural rights are gone. Too busy living the good life to pay attention it unimportant things like this. [Sarcasm]
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
        Hello edweaver,
        I do not know how much more we can take. I have had my fill. For far too many, it seems the "good life" is now nothing more than is required to buy your vote with bread and circuses...
        I keep thinking about how our own revolution began and how it was only a small percentage of patriots fed up with tyranny that brought about the birth of a new nation... So far our government has been subdividing us and using divide and conquer in a way that only offends a small minority at a time, thus smartly avoiding mass rebellion. How long this strategy will continue to work I cannot say.
        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 10 months ago
          I am right there with you O.A. Personally I am very frustrated with the way things are. If I could find a big valley (Gulch) to fly down into that only producers can go to, I would go in an instant. :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
      The problem with this approach is in looking to convert the "masses." If we truly believe in liberty, then these people are free to be ignorant.

      I think the better approach is to recraft the way that we choose our representatives. We need to have a system whereby the electorate has a direct stake in the system. The ability to vote should be earned, not merely bestowed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by radical 9 years, 10 months ago
      When they find out that they are losing all of them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
        Greetings radical,
        At the rate we are going that doesn't seem that far off...
        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by radical 9 years, 10 months ago
          And when they do lose them they will blame the producers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
            This is the section of the article that shows that point very clearly,

            "In order to fulfill their agenda, the political elites must repeat the mantras of needs and public duty, hence exacerbate the dichotomy between the businessmen and public domain. The success of such a vision relied on the looters' ability to breed more intellectually lazy masses to provide them more unearned rewards and privileges. Naturally the failures of the system, according to the anti-business herd, are always due to the heretic greed of the industrialists, who are exploiting the underprivileged."

            Strangely this tactic always seems to work, which is why we always get bigger, more anti-individual government after every major crises.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by m082844 9 years, 10 months ago
              Another theory as to why we get bigger dispit the desire of the masses for smaller government is the moral code of of the general public. Check out Yaron Brooks' book "Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Governemnt" for the complete case from an Objectivist's point of view.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
                Very much agree. Self-sacrifice (to others) so easily becomes group sacrifice. But your group is made of yourself and others. It's a moral code with lots of groups racing to the bottom.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 10 months ago
    Cicero preceded Locke (by about 1800 years) in the description of the rights of a human being granted by the creator. His point was that humans were born with the ability to say anything, the ability to defend their persons, think as they choose, and possess property. Only outside influences can restrict these rights. Of course exercising these rights can at times inflict harm on others, and restrictions are in order, but only to the degree needed to provide the opportunity for others to exercise their rights without harm. Anything more restrictive is tyranny.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello DrZarkov99,
      Indeed. I find it pleasantly coincidental that you reference Cicero since I am reading a book about him presently. :) If when finished (soon) it seems a worthy choice for posting a review on this forum I shall.
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 10 months ago
    "Whether you call them Natural, Unalienable, or God given is inconsequential, at least in relation to how rights are mutually respected, so long as you recognize and respect them. "

    I think you hit on the core of the lefts attack here. 'God-given,and 'Inalienable' are the key words, not so much the Natural.

    I contend, that the Framers specifically wrote 'Creator' and 'inalienable' deliberatly to protect those rights from the regulation, tinkering and revocation of man. Respect is the point of attack for leftists and liberals. To discredit God would make the significance of the words 'Creator' and 'inalienable' moot. To negate those words mean these rights come from our Founders minds. As men of that time their ideas can then be deemed obsolete and dated and are therefore can be subject to modification. Natural rights, while I understand what is meant by the term, also removes the focus from their elevated origin.

    Right or wrong: My history backed 2 bits :)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Good morning AJAshinoff,
      Good points. It is also quite true that in their time they could never have gained necessary support if they had not appealed to the religious.
      There is also something to be said for the benefit of religion, at least Judeo-Christian to society, particularly one established by a majority of believers and especially in a time such as that of our founding. It is a way to inculcate a set of tolerable morals to an otherwise unschooled populace. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams. From his perspective and many of his time it could not be otherwise.
      Regards,
      O.A.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 10 months ago
    Excellent O.A.. While reading that I was trying to determine when our government lost its way. The feeling of superiority seems entrenched in their thinking.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello richrobinson,
      So hard to tell... so many Utopian, idealist, progressives along the way...
      “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
      ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 10 months ago
    This is a quote from the post: Thus legitimate Government “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He also wrote, rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.”

    In this age of the internet, we really don't need deputies (politicians) or an artificial construct of "consent" anymore. I think all government programs should be funded through a mechanism like Kickstarter. People could actually and meaningfully consent (if they choose) by contributing funds to the projects they support, and the unpopular ones won't be funded or enacted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 10 months ago
    The very fact that we have to defend natural rights in today's politics shows how far down the road of irrationality in politics we have traveled.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello Herb7734,
      Sad. Today few politicians are civil servants they believe themselves to be our masters empowered with omniscience and the right to social engineer the minutia of our lives.
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 10 months ago
        I used to wonder how anyone failed to see what was so obvious to me since I was in my teens. Then I realized that "Progressives" have been working at destroying the obvious for a century.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by radical 9 years, 10 months ago
    Feeling safe in relations to guns is not necessarily being safe. These are two different things, or as Ayn Rand might say, "A is A, not B."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
    With all due respect and humbleness, how can Locke identify these as "Natural" rights? Human history seems to disagree. If they truly were "natural" then that would seem to be the norm instead of the aberration. Instead, enslavement seems to be the norm and freedom the aberration. In fact, look at the progression of America, from a land with nearly no oppression, to one where the government now has legislated enslavement (that's what I call mandating the purchase of a good/service against my will). This was done willingly, albeit against the will of a good portion of the populace (even by most accounts against the will of the majority of the people).

    No, Jefferson got it right when he identified that these were bestowed on humanity by our Creator. And that does matter. There is nothing "natural" in these rights. We delude ourselves in thinking otherwise - to our demise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello Robbie53024,
      You make a strong argument. All I can suggest is that the norm is the yearning of the majority, but it is always a majority that is oppressed by a minority. It is the epic struggle of good and evil. Occasionally the tables turn. Hence the founding of America. If they did not, the evil being the norm, would have annihilated all by now. If it were not the norm, wouldn't primitive man having a norm of oppression, prevented any positive progress? No? Just a thought... a dream that once upon a time seemed plausible... that freedom and liberty would spread/flow from the fountainhead...

      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
        Do you really believe that the majority of the American populace truly yearns for freedom? I think not. They yearn to be taken care of, to be told what to think, and how to live. Freedom allows failure, and that is unacceptable to the masses.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 10 months ago
          Knowledge begets power. Wealth begets laziness. When some become lazy and stop acquiring knowledge, they are easy prey for those who are more knowledgeable and - seeking power - use their knowledge to manipulate. The only recourse is to realize one is being manipulated (gain knowledge) and use that knowledge (power) to take an alternate course.

          I do believe that the masses are fat, lazy, and ignorant - much like the masses of the Romans who clamored for entertainment even while their mighty civilization collapsed around their ears.

          That being said, I do believe that the tendencies/proclivities of man that you have enumerated are separate and independent from their rights. One would be wise to recognize, however, that rights are positive in one respect: one must take active steps to protect and act on them or one will passively forfeit them. It is an alternate method of looking at our existence: those who actively pursue their rights (by inheritance for you, Rob) are those who will keep them, while those who do not will be imprisoned by their own failures.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            And yes, I agree, rights exist but if not actively held onto become forfeited. But I also think that freedom is frightening to many, whether consciously understood or not, as it permits failure and most would rather live in mediocrity rather than try for greatness and fail.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
            Problem is, their inaction imprisons me as well. While I don't like that there are many who are too lazy to understand what is happening, and in so doing allow themselves to become enslaved. What galls me are those (several here) who see what is happening and continue to take actions that help to bring on the enslavement (principally by not voting, or even worse, by voting for those who cannot possibly win).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 8 years, 10 months ago
    Excellent post! I especially appreciate Rand's quotes from the Virtue of Selfishness. Very concise, and profound. And the closing; I love it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
    Can anyone or group create a list of these natural rights? If not are they natural?
    People can make lists of natural gem stones, natural animals, natural foods, natural senses, but have BIG trouble agreeing when using the term natural rights.
    It seems to me the natural rights are biased to humans, not nature. Not that that is bad. But, I prefer the alternate term individual rights since the idea is all about the rights of the individual. The individual is part of nature but so is the parasite. Focus these rights to where they belong.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello Solver,
      This could be quite an interesting exercise, but it may also quite exhaustive. As It relates to natural rights, human rights, unalienable, individual rights, God given, whatever you wish to call them and they have a conceptual character that encompass' a vast array. This is why it is easier to write a ninth amendment and leave them un-enumerated. They are fundamental and encompass the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought, expression, association, the right to work, property, etc. All that is prerequisite for these things to exist...
      Give it a shot. I would like to see what you come up with.
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
    Thought exercise for you, OA. A yacht with 10 people on board, five women and 5 men, capsizes and the occupants are stranded on a deserted island. There is barely enough food for all to eat and survive, but they do. One of the women becomes pregnant - the additional child will not immediately cause any deterioration of resources as they will obtain sustenance from the mother. But two or three years down the line that child will begin to crowd out the resources for the others.
    1) Does that first child have a natural right to life?
    2) If more women become pregnant and have their own children, do they have a natural right to life?
    3) Are these natural rights dependent upon the ability of the community to generate resources for all to survive?

    If you'd like, make it a spaceship so that no possibility of rescue or generation of additional resources is possible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello Robbie53024,
      Interesting questions. I know others may not agree with my answers, but I do have some.
      1) Yes.
      2) Yes.
      3) No.
      The parent/parents are responsible for providing the resources or sacrificing their own since they were responsible for bringing into the world those lives knowing they would be dependent. This is how the population naturally grew in the first place. If the parents cannot provide they must rely upon the generosity of others. They have no moral right to make demands upon others. If they must sacrifice, gather, hunt, or grow more and work harder so be it. In space, more consideration for unplanned pregnancy and its relation to resources may be required, but I must point out that space is not a natural place for man and therefore "natural rights' may be found wanting...

      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
        Thanks, OA. The purpose was to question whether in a system of limited resources, do "natural rights" apply. As you identify for the space ship example, that is not a "natural" environment - I might also say that a deserted island could be considered the same. Just something to question.

        I don't have any perfect answers, but in a closed system where your decisions have a direct impact on my survival, I think that the concepts of natural rights would need to be amended. Thus, can they really be considered "natural?"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
    I once heard a lady on a radio show scream at the top of her lungs that, “Health care is a right!!!”
    She was so sure of herself.
    So now America has the mandated right to Obamacare and not heath care of our own individual choosing. :(
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      She was full of herself... She has enough knowledge to speak... “A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.” ― Alexander Pope
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 9 years, 10 months ago
    "Natural rights are corollary to your existence, requisite for protecting existence, and the foundation upon which all other rights are derived. "

    I don't see how/why natural rights matter from this. What other rights are you referencing?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Greetings m082844,
      I believe the distinction between natural and civil as Paine has defined them is the answer. For example, Miranda rights and voting rights are not needed in a state of nature, but are in a civil society.
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by m082844 9 years, 10 months ago
        I see. That clears it up for me thanks. I like Mr. Paine -- big fan. The objectivist position is that rights are a concept that apply to a social context, so rights do not apply to a state of nature (i.e., not a social context), in that case you rely simply on moral concepts. Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
          Hello m082844,
          I do not call my self an "objectivist" though I have found no superior single philosophy. I am a student of Objectivism. I have studied much philosophy and glean from each all that is pleasing and reason permits.
          Regards,
          O.A.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 9 years, 10 months ago
    The masses have not yet seen the contradiction in what the politicians say and the laws they pass. They wanted the right to get property via mortgages they could not afford. They wanted government to help. All the while, government is piecemeal implementing UN Agenda 21 to abolish property rights for all except government. Seems logical that they are working against the masses, yet the masses don't yet get it.
    Then the right to life - really, under Obamacare. That one may be starting to sink in with the masses, but too slowly.
    Liberty, where did that go? Look how many liberties have been breached since Obama took office. You can own property, if the government allows it - for now. You can own a gun, unless you are a "religious fanatic" or "veteran", the the government says you are to unstable. The list of exceptions to our liberties grows by the day.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello Stormi,
      Even property ownership is on shaky ground. As long as one must pay property taxes, then one is merely renting it from the government. They have the power to confiscate it at the first default. There is only one thing you can truly own, that they cannot take... and it is your mind.
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Stormi 9 years, 10 months ago
        I wish! With Obamacare and National control of people's treatment, even our minds are at risk. The wrong drug, the required shots, and the mind is no longer our own. How many people have drug induced Alzheimers after entering nursing homes? Remember Gates' remarks on vaccines are the way to go, to control population. Look what they have done to American Indians without their knowledge, simply by adding drugs to their water supply. Look what the government schools system has done to our children's minds. They will seize private property when they feel safe, but they are already seizing our minds.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
    It would be great to have a large list of all kinds of rights and their descriptions, then categorize them into the various categories such as “natural” rights, individual rights, human rights, social rights, national rights, animal right, planet rights or other rights. Add an explanation of why each right is in a particular category. Then maybe a rights lookup app for iOS or Android could be made. Right now, are are no apps of this type.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 9 years, 10 months ago
    "Natural rights are corollary to your existence, requisite for protecting existence, and the foundation upon which all other rights are derived. "

    I don't see how/why natural rights matter from this. What other rights are you referencing?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 9 years, 10 months ago
    Deceased humans have only the natural law of obedience as a right because WILL is no longer present. Living humans have WILL and natural law applies. Luke 10: 27 He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
    Question: by what method do we determine whether or not anything is a natural right, and how do we resolve conflicts of opinion regarding rights? What happens when one right conflicts with another right?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
      Hello Maphesdus,
      I believe they are all rights necessary for the continuation of your existence so long as they do not interfere with the same rights of another. Thus no conflict. Do you have an example of conflict, keeping in mind what I have suggested?
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
        Given the right circumstances, I can't think of any right which does not contain the possibility of potentially infringing on the rights of another person. There are potential conflicts in everything.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by m082844 9 years, 10 months ago
          In the objectivist theory of rights, there is no conflict; only complete harmony. Can you give an example? I'll try to apply the objectivist theory so you can see what I mean.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -1
            Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
            The Objectivist theory is flawed. It's not possible to create a system of perfect harmony.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by m082844 9 years, 10 months ago
              Granted I have not memorized every facet of the Objectivist theory of rights, but the parts I do remember are non-contradictory. How is it flawed?

              I suppose it depends on what you mean by harmony. I meant that rights don't contradict and step on eachother. This kind of harmony is not only possible, but it's actual according to the Objectivist theory. If you mean, however, that people can still violate rights and disrupt the harmony (I.e., what results from a non-initiated force environment) in any system, then this is certainly true.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 10 months ago
          Hello Maphesdus,
          If this is what you believe, it should be quite easy to provide an example. If while exercising one's rights it violates another's then it cannot be a right within the constraints I have described. If I violate another's rights such as polluting upstream from them, then they have legal recourse against me for violating their rights, but I have not been constrained by my own definition.
          Regards,
          O.A.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo