Natural/inherent rights

To state it more clearly and fully. I defer to Ayn Rand:

The Source of Rights:

"The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

 

This defames the whites who gave their lives and limbs in the war of southern secession.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Ayn.

 

1. There are no God-given rights.
2. There is no god
3. No one has established said god out of the 1000s to choose from.

So it's a moot point to talk about god given.
I can go with natural or god given if you think god is nature.
And then, if it's natural, then every human has those same rights. But it is human, that is determining those rights.

And the only one that really sticks at applying to all humans is 'LIFE'.
Any other right must be given by some means. Governing body or might are a couple of options.

So, until a god is agreed upon, we can't talk about god given.
Which god would you be saying has given all humans the same rights?
And where do we find said rights from this given god?

 

As if hearing voices in one's head from some god is better?

You know, there are people that claim they talk to god and it talks back to them?

 

Sure, I believe someone else asked you for this list of inherent rights. I don't remember seeing any list.
What, other than one's life, is an inherent right? And who decided this list of inherent rights that every human is granted?

 

Not many are. Altruism and mysticism are deeply rooted in the human psyche. It will take a bit to overthrow and replace it with selfishness and reason. But in the end, Objectivism will prevail; as the good always does.

But still, if Man has no rights, then tyrants can’t be stopped.

 

Well... ehem.... here's my list. The freedom to speak, the freedom to defend my life and property, the freedom to assemble to express my religious beliefs, the freedom to assemble without consent of government, and the right to protections from government from their onerous overreach. Oh, and free ice cream. There has to be free ice cream..

Ok, I kid about the last one. But those are the basics. From those four or so, all other basic tenants of inherent natural rights are derived.

As to "who decided", why do you believe that someone did? Do you not understand inherency?

 

No, I don't believe in inherent. Except for right to life, as most all will kill to defend it and do whatever it takes to sustain it. Even commit crimes to eat and find shelter.
IMO, all other rights are what society deems. But I agree with your lists, just don't see them as inherent but granted.

Oh yes, I can go with ice cream as an inherent right.

 

Yes they can, just need more might.

 

Then you don't have any natural rights. No right to life, no freedom of speech, no right to self protection...

The problem that my friends on the left have with these things is that they look to the government for everything, so trying to think outside of that particular box is an impossibility.

 

So, you don't think life would be an inherent right?

 

It's a natural right, but your idea seems to be that if the government can't guarantee or provide it, then it's not a right.

It's what god gave both of us, and the government had nothing to do with it.

 

which god? when was it given? I'd like to see that in writing.
It doesn't have to be a gov't, it can be any enforcing mechanism. Even an individual.
If I squelch your speech, what can you do about it?

 

Yours is a semantic point. It does not matter which god; pick any one you want. The point is that humans are born with inherent natural rights and what those rights are is not decided by mankind. If not bestowed by man then they have to derive from something or somewhere: god, many gods, nature -- take your pick. God seemed like a good choice to the framers. They were probably thinking of the Judaeo-Christian God (same as the Islam God, Allah), but it doesn't matter. Now man can figure out what those rights are (maybe with less than perfection) but they do not create and bestow them. Like man can figure out how the sun rises in the east, but he does not cause it. Man can also inhibit someone's capability to exercise those natural inherent rights, but that does not mean they don't exist.

 

The concept needs to be repeated. Absent inherency of rights, bestowed rights are transient, repudiable, temporary. What the left would want us to believe is that a majority in government can and should bestow our rights, because that's what "good" government does. And in the same breath entirely ignore that "good" and government are very rarely associable. Simply accepting that natural or inherent rights exists unfortunately restricts the average liberal from accomplishing the tyranny the truly wish to impose. It is as simple as that, as base as that, and undermining the public's perception of their own natural/inherent rights puts them in the mind to allow government then to control them.

 

God was no choice to the framers. That's why, IMO, they never said god, they said 'their creator'.
The only true, natural inherent right, is life, IMO. We will all have our special personal list to what an inherent right is. And most everyone will agree with life. Beyond that, it's up to people to say what they want as inherent.
And the framers, just listed 3. So per our constitution, we will basically have 3.
But one, the pursuit of happiness is pretty wide open. For there are many obstacles that can limit one's pursuit of happiness.

 

Good point about the framer's use of the word Creator instead of God. That was not just happenstance or accidental. There is nothing altering the natural right to the pursuit of happiness. The only obstacles, and you are correct, there are many, are not in the pursuit but in the capability to actually get there. Happiness per se is not a natural inalienable right.

 

Swell. How about satan?

Perhaps you'll vouchsafe us an explanation of the substantive difference between rights bestowed by man and rights bestowed by gods created by man.

Had they thought like you, the United States wouldn't even be a footnote in history.

 

Whoever or whatever you like as the Creator.

The Creator was not created by man. The Creator made man, through one process or another. Beyond that, rights bestowed by man can just as easily be taken away by man which makes them alienable

I have no clue what your point is.......

 

Unalienable rights? Because, what you are talking about in the op isn't the same. First, to understand unalienable rights, you'd have to be a Christian. Second, you'd have to believe. Third, you'd have to understand the times which led up to a declaration of unalienable rights. So, you may be missing the mark completely. There is no discussion possible by comparing apples to oranges.

 

Actually our constitution is not the government protecting rights, but is in place to limit its own power from treading on them.

I think the wording is important.

 

Ice cream is something we can all agree on. There is hope for our country after all.

 

Natural/inherent rights are a myth. There is no such thing.

We are born, we live until we die. What we choose to do in between is the closest thing to a right that we have.

 

It seems self evident to me. When the Nazi's start bombing you, you fight back or you perish.