Inherent rights, do they exist.

But true.

 

How many "rights" can dance on the head of a pin?

 

Every other right one has are man made.
Natural rights don't get extended. It should be coined Natural Right. Not plural since there's only 1 Natural Right.
All others are man made.

 

Incorrect.

All valid rights are derived from your right of self ownership, including such things the rights to the fruits of your labor, property rights and your right of association. These are all negative rights.

 

What is this "self" that "owns"? Is this the internal image built up in the mind/brain, the persona we have learned we are while we were growing up? The ephemeral, everchanging, mood-swinging identity that talks to itself (usually silently) inside the skull? You could as well say the brain owns this "self", as without the one there would not be the other. Thus, the body everyone is so quick to speak about as if it were detached from the "I/Me", could be as well said to "own" the "self" as vice versa.
The very concept of "owning" gets called into question in this situation. What does ownership have to do with a symbiotic relationship, and interdependent existence?
Above all, what is this ownership and where are these "rights" before and after we exist? Is there some sort of 'ether' where such things dwell?

 

Hmm.. So is that what you vote for then? To have government take your rights away from you?

 

Did you really just box yourself into a paradigm then that government can restrict abortion? I knew, eventually , one of you folks was going to do it.....

 

No, to uphold my rights for me.

 

But just the ones they give you.. right?

 

They're the only ones there are. Any others are just imaginary.

 

Without a law, there worthless.

 

I don't get why that's such a tough concept to grasp?
The only real rights we have is what a society agrees to and then puts an enforcing mechanism in place to uphold those agreed upon rights.
The Right to Life is the only Natural Right all living creatures have and fight for.

All other rights humans fight for must be agreed to.

 

Of course gov't can.
Did they not do it for decades?
And we have gov'ts restricting them today.

In fact, there's always been restrictions on Abortions.

 

Without those, laws are worthless.

 

Not really. We can have speeding laws without those privileges you mentioned.
We can have a law(s) one needs to pass certain criteria to get a divers license. To purchase a car.

All self rights of ownership require agreements among other people. And then an enforcing mechanism.
It doesn't occur in Nature.

 

Yes, really.

All of which are infringements upon liberty.

First, don't conflate natural law with nature.

Second, those agreements are immoral if they infringe upon one's right to self ownership. The vast majority of man made rights are positive right and thus not moral.

 

Liberty isn't a natural right.



[/QUOTE]First, don't conflate natural law with nature.

Second, those agreements are immoral if they infringe upon one's right to self ownership. The vast majority of man made rights are positive right and thus not moral.[/QUOTE]
Here is a definition you gave regarding Natural Right.

Everything you've been posting about is about laws or customs. And cultures all have different views of ownership, liberties, fruits of labor, etc.
In other words, they are not fundamental or universal.

Life is about the only thing Universal.

 

I agree, though I would probably add the right protect your family and the right to be free, if we are counting things folks would fight to the death for.

 

Fighting to the Death for the Right to Life seems a little problematic to me somehow.

 

No "rights" exist in society without responsibility, including "liberty". Freedom of movement can be taken from a person if he acts in certain ways that others cannot tolerate and they organize themselves to confine him. He may still remain free in mind and spirit; that "right" cannot be "alienated" other than by volition or death. That is because it is internal, invisible and, thus, invulnerable to external control.

 

Which basically means that your premise locks you forever in whatever set of shackles government wants. Thankfully, we don't subscribe to that premise in the US.

 

Depends on whether you are fighting for your right to life or for others.

 

Fraid you do. Try claiming a 'right' the government say you can't have. The right to park your car where you want, would be a simple test.

 

It is incredibly sad that people seem to no longer understand the premise of natural rights and how law (legal rights) is supposed to protect those rights and not supplant them. No government or society provides ones rights, they can only protect them or infringe upon them.

 

Hmm.. you mean like owning a firearm?