If Rights do not derive from the Deity, do they derive from Nature?

[bilby]

I.e., you mean something by "right" that's completely unrelated to what Jefferson meant by "right".

Jefferson wasn't describing some fundamental characteristic of reality; he was describing what sort of government he and his colleagues were forming.

Here is the sum total of what the D.of.I. has to say about what sort of governments he and his colleagues were forming.

...as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

The preamble is a series of claims about some fundamental characteristic of reality; the bulk of the declaration is a justification for the action they were taking; the description of what sort of governments would result is almost an afterthought, probably thrown in as a way of inviting the French to help out.

If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile.

Huh? By what logic? Jefferson said "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". Well, why the heck would it be futile to form a government to secure rights that derived from gods or from nature? If people decide "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" to a "separate and equal station" and/or "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", how exactly would that either magically make those people's enemies not try to violate those rights or magically make forming a government an ineffective way to stop them?

Many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental, and as a result they believe that government is unnecessary.

Your opinion that they aren't fundamental is not an argument that those who disagree with your opinion have fooled themselves. No doubt a few of those who have thought rights are fundamental also inferred that government is unnecessary, but so what? Lots of people make erroneous inferences from correct premises; no doubt some people have even made erroneous inferences from premises you agree with; I doubt you would regard their existence as evidence against the correctness of your premises. Since neither Jefferson, obviously, nor AFAIK anyone on FRDB, has claimed fundamental rights make government unnecessary, the existence of that silly opinion is beside the point.

But without government, rights cease to exist in any meaningful sense - you have the right only to what you can take and defend, and only for as long as nobody comes along who can take it from you.

But without government, rights cease to exist in your sense, Mr. Yes I think 'Might = Right's probably true. Yes, without government we have the might only to what we can take and defend, and only for as long as nobody comes along who can take it from us. No one is disputing your ability to construct tautologies. But the circumstance that you choose to speak an idiolect in which the word "right" means "might" and in which there exists no word for what normal English speakers use "right" to mean is not an argument that people who instead choose to speak normal English are not using the word in any meaningful sense.

You appear to be very confused by what I wrote, given that much of your response is asking my why I believe things I don't, and/or why I don't agree with you on points with which I agree.

Perhaps you would do better to read what I said, taking great care not to project your expectations on it, and then respond to that?

Or maybe you could simply explain what YOU think are the characteristics of a 'right' that make it able to exist independent of a government; That might also help us to discuss the topic.

As it stands, I can't make a meaningful response to the questions you ask in your reply, because they don't make any sense in the light of my already stated position, and your reply does not present an intelligible countervailing position to compare with mine.

 

[Bomb#20]

You appear to be very confused by what I wrote, given that much of your response is asking my why I believe things I don't, and/or why I don't agree with you on points with which I agree.

Perhaps you would do better to read what I said, taking great care not to project your expectations on it, and then respond to that?

Sorry. Reading carelessly, I assumed when you said "Rights derive from government." you meant rights derive from government; when you said "If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile." you meant if those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile; when you said "Many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental" you meant many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental; and when you said "without government, rights cease to exist in any meaningful sense" you meant without government, rights cease to exist in any meaningful sense. My bad. Unfortunately, I don't have the skill to divine what you actually meant since you appear to be speaking some private language. Feel free to explain what those statements actually mean. Unfortunately, I very much doubt that you're willing to explain what you mean in plain English, given that you just passed up an excellent opportunity to do so. I suspect we're therefore going to have to break this off without any clarification; but it would be lovely if I were to be proven wrong about that.

Or maybe you could simply explain what YOU think are the characteristics of a 'right' that make it able to exist independent of a government; That might also help us to discuss the topic.

A "right" is "something to which one has a just claim". - Merriam-Webster

It seems to me I have a just claim to not be ass-raped by you. Which is to say, if you ass-rape me you've acted unjustly. Why on earth would the existence or nonexistence of a government policy of protecting me from being ass-raped by you, or for that matter the existence or nonexistence of a government at all, have any bearing on the justice or injustice of you ass-raping me? How is it possible for a right to depend on or be derived from a government? What, by it being just for a caveman to ass-rape another caveman, but a government saying "Thou shalt not ass-rape" making it unjust, the same as a god saying "Thou shalt not work on Saturday" somehow mystically making it unjust to work on Saturday?

As it stands, I can't make a meaningful response to the questions you ask in your reply, because they don't make any sense in the light of my already stated position, and your reply does not present an intelligible countervailing position to compare with mine.

When you wrote "If", did you mean to assert that your antecedent implies your consequent? If so, by what logic do you infer that if those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile? If that's not what you meant by "If", what did you mean by "If"?

 

[fromderinside]

Re Jeffereson

Declaration of Independence http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Paragraph I Reason for cause of separation

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Paragraph II Cause of Separation

yada yada

Its a belief statement used to justify cause for separation. Its not a declaration that rights. Its just the belief in a set of held ideals in argument of reason for separation.

If I were to use these sentiments in reference to the OP I would say that the rights if they were to exist derive as ideals for the proposed new government.

The only way one could even hint that the rights are derived from nature is if one could show that government is part of nature.

 

[bilby]

Sorry. Reading carelessly, I assumed when you said "Rights derive from government." you meant rights derive from government; when you said "If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile." you meant if those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile; when you said "Many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental" you meant many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental; and when you said "without government, rights cease to exist in any meaningful sense" you meant without government, rights cease to exist in any meaningful sense.

That is exactly what I did mean.

My bad. Unfortunately, I don't have the skill to divine what you actually meant since you appear to be speaking some private language.

It isn't private; We call it 'English', and lots of people speak it.

Feel free to explain what those statements actually mean. Unfortunately, I very much doubt that you're willing to explain what you mean in plain English, given that you just passed up an excellent opportunity to do so. I suspect we're therefore going to have to break this off without any clarification; but it would be lovely if I were to be proven wrong about that.

Or maybe you could simply explain what YOU think are the characteristics of a 'right' that make it able to exist independent of a government; That might also help us to discuss the topic.

A "right" is "something to which one has a just claim". - Merriam-Webster

It seems to me I have a just claim to not be ass-raped by you. Which is to say, if you ass-rape me you've acted unjustly. Why on earth would the existence or nonexistence of a government policy of protecting me from being ass-raped by you, or for that matter the existence or nonexistence of a government at all, have any bearing on the justice or injustice of you ass-raping me? How is it possible for a right to depend on or be derived from a government? What, by it being just for a caveman to ass-rape another caveman, but a government saying "Thou shalt not ass-rape" making it unjust, the same as a god saying "Thou shalt not work on Saturday" somehow mystically making it unjust to work on Saturday?

As it stands, I can't make a meaningful response to the questions you ask in your reply, because they don't make any sense in the light of my already stated position, and your reply does not present an intelligible countervailing position to compare with mine.

When you wrote "If", did you mean to assert that your antecedent implies your consequent? If so, by what logic do you infer that if those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile? If that's not what you meant by "If", what did you mean by "If"?

Ah, I see; you think that justice can exist independent of a government. That explains why I didn't understand what you were on about - I made the false assumption that your unwritten assumptions made sense.

A 'just claim' differs from a mere 'claim' only by being 'just'; and justice is something that is provided only by some kind of judge.

So far, the candidates discussed in this thread as judges are threefold: 'The deity', 'Nature' or 'Government'. Of these, 'The Deity' can be eliminated due to a total existence failure; And 'Nature' can be eliminated as amoral.

We are left with the situation where using your preferred definition ("something to which one has a just claim"), the difference between an 'arbitrary claim' and a 'right' lies in the determination of what is just.

That determination requires some form of government. Justice is not something that derives from nature or God; it is a function of the way a society is governed. If the question of what is just is left to the individual, then it is meaningless - each individual can arbitrarily declare anything just, and a right becomes "something to which one has a claim", rendering the concept futile.

 

[Togo]

So.. how do governments decide what is right? Do they simply grant the judgement to the stronger party, or do they invoke some kind of principals? If the latter, then where do they get those principals from?

Because it seems to me that judgements, whether made by individuals or by governments, seem to rely on some kind of principals made up by ordinary people. Which if they can't exist outside of government, would be impossible, no? Or is there a distinction between rights and values here?

 

[Underseer]

Why would the concept of rights have to derive from either a deity or nature? It is simply an idea, and the only thing an idea requires to exist is a sentient mind.

 

[bilby]

So.. how do governments decide what is right? Do they simply grant the judgement to the stronger party, or do they invoke some kind of principals? If the latter, then where do they get those principals from?

Because it seems to me that judgements, whether made by individuals or by governments, seem to rely on some kind of principals made up by ordinary people. Which if they can't exist outside of government, would be impossible, no? Or is there a distinction between rights and values here?

There is a distinction; Every person has values, which derive from their experiences; When people set out to form a government, those values that influence the formation of the government can become enshrined as rights - and this is what is happening with the Declaration of Independence - the statement "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..." is a statement of the values that the founders intend to enshrine as rights by forming a government. Of course many people valued life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness before the declaration, and before the establishment of a new government; but these were not rights until agreed upon as rights by some kind of government.

Declaring that your intended goal is some kind of law of nature that cannot be opposed is an old propaganda trick; I very much doubt that the right to liberty was actually self evident to people many of whom owned slaves, and who were personally concerned about the possibility of arrest and incarceration by the British authorities for merely asserting their freedom.

The rights that exist in a democratic society are a reflection of the values of the electorate, as modified by the values of their representatives. In a dictatorship, the rights that exist are whatever the dictator values (albeit slightly modified by the interpretation of his values by his bureaucrats and apparatchiks).

 

[fromderinside]

So.. how do governments decide what is right? Do they simply grant the judgement to the stronger party, or do they invoke some kind of principals? If the latter, then where do they get those principals from?

Because it seems to me that judgements, whether made by individuals or by governments, seem to rely on some kind of principals made up by ordinary people. Which if they can't exist outside of government, would be impossible, no? Or is there a distinction between rights and values here?

There is a distinction; Every person has values, which derive from their experiences; When people set out to form a government, those values that influence the formation of the government can become enshrined as rights - and this is what is happening with the Declaration of Independence - the statement "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..." is a statement of the values that the founders intend to enshrine as rights by forming a government. Of course many people valued life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness before the declaration, and before the establishment of a new government; but these were not rights until agreed upon as rights by some kind of government.

Declaring that your intended goal is some kind of law of nature that cannot be opposed is an old propaganda trick; I very much doubt that the right to liberty was actually self evident to people many of whom owned slaves, and who were personally concerned about the possibility of arrest and incarceration by the British authorities for merely asserting their freedom.

The rights that exist in a democratic society are a reflection of the values of the electorate, as modified by the values of their representatives. In a dictatorship, the rights that exist are whatever the dictator values (albeit slightly modified by the interpretation of his values by his bureaucrats and apparatchiks).

Lets don't be so generous. Elites make governments. The values proclaimed are often adjusted by immersion among citizens over time. Being equal in the US, for instance, is either white top tier northers distributing charity among the unfortunate (mostly those not of England descent and primarily black and most of the poor) or, elite white top tier southers controlling what they see as something less than human (black and any outsiders who aren't well off). Gee we've just collectively said we are a racist culture ferchrissake. Inalienable is mostly for those born into it.

Representatives are products of regions and what goes on as adjusting rights are negotiations among elites to keep the lid on. We've had periodic riots across the decades telling everyone that what is right isn't right. That mostly lead to different faces put on what is still essentially the norther souther negotiated view of rights. All one has to do is look who ran things in the fifties and at who runs things now.

As for dictatorships there are many varieties. All involve consolidating power among a few and using whatever means at hand to keep the lid on.

Rather than rights we might look at values instead. Those operate more like you wrote bilby. Really that' s just veneer to keep the lid on. Does anyone really believe that deep down the elite population of The Chosen People for a profitable world would tolerate anything but their continued control if push came to shove. Right now its easier to shade words and not carry knives to dinner parties. Put a little more pressure in the name of rightful profit on those who thought they had hope and watch what happens. Why do you think we have 2 million in jail here. Its not because there are more bad people here that's for sure.

Ordinary people (those trying to find enough food and shelter to not be starving) operate outside the rights-values regime as do most of those we generously call a middle class. It seems to be a transaction based value system centered around what keeps each from being taken away or taken advantage of.*

* ^{_{Probably depressed.}}

 

[tupac chopra]

Does the OP question have a true answer, and if so, how does one find out what it is?

No, it has no answer which means it's the wrong question. Once we ask better questions we will get better answers

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah, I see; you think that justice can exist independent of a government. That explains why I didn't understand what you were on about - I made the false assumption that your unwritten assumptions made sense.

Is that an acknowledgement that when you wrote:

"You appear to be very confused by what I wrote, given that much of your response is asking my why I believe things I don't, and/or why I don't agree with you on points with which I agree.

Perhaps you would do better to read what I said, taking great care not to project your expectations on it, and then respond to that?",​

actually you were the one who was confused and you were the one who was projecting expectations? Or is there still some point you think I asked you why you disagree with me about that we actually agree on, and/or something I asked you why you believe that you don't believe? In that post I really only asked you two questions about your beliefs, the others having been mere elaboration on the first question.

(1) You wrote "If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile." and I asked you "By what logic?".

Now, I grant you that I was presuming you believe what you wrote; but since you insist you meant what it means in English, that seems like a fair presumption to me. If you don't believe what you wrote feel free to correct my presumption that you do. Contrariwise, feel free to explain the logic connecting your antecedent to your consequent.

(2) You wrote "Many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental, and as a result they believe that government is unnecessary." and I asked you "So what?".

Now, I grant you that I was presuming you believe that that bit of biography of unidentified persons has some relevance to the subject matter under discussion. If that was mere projected expectation on my part and you actually agree with me that what you wrote was irrelevant, well and good.

A 'just claim' differs from a mere 'claim' only by being 'just'; and justice is something that is provided only by some kind of judge.

dictionary.com defines "justice" thusly:

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process:​

It should be painfully obvious that the circumstance that some of these can be provided only by some kind of judge does not imply that the others can be provided only by some kind of judge. So do any of these definitions encapsulate what you mean by "justice" when you claim it is provided only by some kind of judge? If so, which ones? If not, what is your definition of "justice"?

So far, the candidates discussed in this thread as judges are threefold: 'The deity', 'Nature' or 'Government'. Of these, 'The Deity' can be eliminated due to a total existence failure; And 'Nature' can be eliminated as amoral.

Hmm. The plot thickens. What is the inference procedure that leads from Nature engendering the existence of government-independent just claims to Nature being moral? Would it by any chance be the same as the inference procedure that leads from the universe engendering the existence of government-independent life forms to the universe being alive? I seem to recall one of our TFT posters claiming that was a fallacy and linking to a Wikipedia page on it.

That determination requires some form of government. Justice is not something that derives from nature or God; it is a function of the way a society is governed. If the question of what is just is left to the individual, then it is meaningless - each individual can arbitrarily declare anything just, and a right becomes "something to which one has a claim", rendering the concept futile.

Is that just an elaborate way to say "The King can do no wrong."?

 

[George S]

Rights are inherited. And might makes right. Right for what? Propagation.

In a strict hierarchy the single leader has all the rights. He may give any order and it must be obeyed. In the US Constitution the statement that there are certain inherent "rights" is in contrast to the monarchy model. Among those unlisted is the "right" to ownership. They designed a republic with a Senate of the politically connected in the states; their purpose was to represent that state's rights. The other house was composed of taxpayers -- the only people allowed to vote at the time. It was all about tax disbursement with representation of taxpayers. The Deist God was called "Nature's God," but any God-believer could agree. The maker of all physics.

In a human utopia no disease would go uncured, not a single individual would starve -- a "right" to life.
In a human utopia no one would require imprisonment -- a "right" to liberty.
In a human utopia new pleasures and old pleasures in new ways would be unrestricted -- a "right" to the pursuit of happiness (and the right to escape unhappiness).

Unlike conditions in a monarchy or any other strict hierarchy in which anything goes at the top.
Living persons have a "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except...(the list is long).

 

[bilby]

Is that an acknowledgement that when you wrote:

"You appear to be very confused by what I wrote, given that much of your response is asking my why I believe things I don't, and/or why I don't agree with you on points with which I agree.

Perhaps you would do better to read what I said, taking great care not to project your expectations on it, and then respond to that?",​

actually you were the one who was confused and you were the one who was projecting expectations? Or is there still some point you think I asked you why you disagree with me about that we actually agree on, and/or something I asked you why you believe that you don't believe? In that post I really only asked you two questions about your beliefs, the others having been mere elaboration on the first question.

(1) You wrote "If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile." and I asked you "By what logic?".

Now, I grant you that I was presuming you believe what you wrote; but since you insist you meant what it means in English, that seems like a fair presumption to me. If you don't believe what you wrote feel free to correct my presumption that you do. Contrariwise, feel free to explain the logic connecting your antecedent to your consequent.

I have. If you don't understand my explanation, then that's your loss; I am disinclined to put in the (apparently considerable) effort needed to make it clear enough for you.

(2) You wrote "Many people have fooled themselves into believing that rights are fundamental, and as a result they believe that government is unnecessary." and I asked you "So what?".

So they are wrong. Der.

Now, I grant you that I was presuming you believe that that bit of biography of unidentified persons has some relevance to the subject matter under discussion. If that was mere projected expectation on my part and you actually agree with me that what you wrote was irrelevant, well and good.

A 'just claim' differs from a mere 'claim' only by being 'just'; and justice is something that is provided only by some kind of judge.

dictionary.com defines "justice" thusly:

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process:​

It should be painfully obvious that the circumstance that some of these can be provided only by some kind of judge does not imply that the others can be provided only by some kind of judge. So do any of these definitions encapsulate what you mean by "justice" when you claim it is provided only by some kind of judge? If so, which ones? If not, what is your definition of "justice"?

So far, the candidates discussed in this thread as judges are threefold: 'The deity', 'Nature' or 'Government'. Of these, 'The Deity' can be eliminated due to a total existence failure; And 'Nature' can be eliminated as amoral.

Hmm. The plot thickens. What is the inference procedure that leads from Nature engendering the existence of government-independent just claims to Nature being moral? Would it by any chance be the same as the inference procedure that leads from the universe engendering the existence of government-independent life forms to the universe being alive? I seem to recall one of our TFT posters claiming that was a fallacy and linking to a Wikipedia page on it.

That determination requires some form of government. Justice is not something that derives from nature or God; it is a function of the way a society is governed. If the question of what is just is left to the individual, then it is meaningless - each individual can arbitrarily declare anything just, and a right becomes "something to which one has a claim", rendering the concept futile.

Is that just an elaborate way to say "The King can do no wrong."?

No.

I think I shall go and debate with my dictionary; It achieves the same effect as discussing this topic with you, but without the attitude.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Bomb#20]

(1) You wrote "If those rights derived from Gods or from nature, the whole business of forming a government would be futile." and I asked you "By what logic?".
... feel free to explain the logic connecting your antecedent to your consequent.

I have.

That appears on its face to be an incorrect statement of the history of our exchange.

If you don't understand my explanation, then that's your loss;

The problem is not that I don't understand your explanation; the problem is that I don't observe it. None of your subsequent statements either has an internal structure or appears in a context that makes it look like it was intended as an answer to "By what logic?".

I am disinclined to put in the (apparently considerable) effort needed to make it clear enough for you.

I apologize for my lowly unworthiness of your valuable time, Your Condescendingness. But I have to point out that since you believe something you already wrote already explained it, it would take negligible effort on your part to fill in the blanks in the following sentence:

The conclusion that the whole business of forming a government would be futile follows logically from the premise that those rights derived from Gods or from nature because, as I wrote in post #__, "____".​

A 'just claim' differs from a mere 'claim' only by being 'just'; and justice is something that is provided only by some kind of judge.

dictionary.com defines "justice" thusly:

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process:​

It should be painfully obvious that the circumstance that some of these can be provided only by some kind of judge does not imply that the others can be provided only by some kind of judge. So do any of these definitions encapsulate what you mean by "justice" when you claim it is provided only by some kind of judge? If so, which ones? If not, what is your definition of "justice"?

...

I think I shall go and debate with my dictionary; It achieves the same effect as discussing this topic with you, but without the attitude.

Thanks for playing though.

As I strongly suspect you are already aware, I was not proposing a dueling definition fight. I was politely accusing you of committing equivocation fallacies and I was offering you an opportunity to refute the charge. So now I'm flat-out accusing you of equivocating on the terms "right" and "justice" and I'm offering you an opportunity to refute the charge.

Now, I fully recognize that you do not want this discussion. You transparently don't much care for my attitude of skepticism toward your pronouncements -- those who make religiously motivated pronouncements seldom do -- so you are attempting proof by ad hominem. Suit yourself.

 

[rhutchin]

If Rights do not derive from the Deity, do they derive from Nature?

Or are they simply a matter of preference? And if so, if we had the innate and universal instinctual for enjoying cannibalism (enjoying but certainly not needing it, like our inclination for bacon or red meat in general), certainly many, if not all, human cultures would grant people the right to cannibalize each other, or--more workably- a predefined subset of humans... but would it be our right, as in universal or "human" right?

The only right derived from nature is the right to life. Having imparted this right, nature then requires that one die. Death can be by natural causes, at the hand of others, or at one's own hand and a person has a varying ability to determine which way death comes. To determine how one will die requires certain necessities to avoid death by means not desired.

 

[PyramidHead]

If Rights do not derive from the Deity, do they derive from Nature?

Or are they simply a matter of preference? And if so, if we had the innate and universal instinctual for enjoying cannibalism (enjoying but certainly not needing it, like our inclination for bacon or red meat in general), certainly many, if not all, human cultures would grant people the right to cannibalize each other, or--more workably- a predefined subset of humans... but would it be our right, as in universal or "human" right?

The only right derived from nature is the right to life. Having imparted this right, nature then requires that one die. Death can be by natural causes, at the hand of others, or at one's own hand and a person has a varying ability to determine which way death comes. To determine how one will die requires certain necessities to avoid death by means not desired.

I would say nature doesn't even provide a right to life, as your next few sentences demonstrate.

 

[Trodon]

I think Thomas Jefferson was writing pretty words in a piece of political propaganda. Jefferson also wrote, "all men are created equal." Try telling that to a school teacher or an athletic trainer. They know that what really matters is talent, and that talent is not equally distributed.

So that's a "no", then? Jeez, why don't you just call him a slave-holder and have done with it? Your argument was an equivocation fallacy, and the circumstance that he wrote propaganda is not a defense.

Thomas Jefferson wrote this 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."

Those "truths" were not self evident to the British government. They are still not self evident to much of the world. In other words, they are not self evident. It is self evident to me that all men are not created equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some have non intellectual talents others do not have. Some are more attractive than others. Some have rich parents. Most do not. These differences mean that some people have an easier time achieving for themselves "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," than others.

 

[George S]

What is a right?



A constitutional right is a legal right. It is each person's legal right to be treated equally before the law. It is each person's legal right pursue happiness. It is each person's legal right to life, with significant exceptions. It is each person's right to liberty, with significant exceptions.

When I am a member of a group I have certain rights within that group by virtue of belonging to that group. Our constitutional rights are a social contract entered into some time ago. It was designed as a republic, and, alas, Ben, we have not kept it a republic. It is now a democracy (in name, at least), and democracies always fail when the majority raids the treasury.

 

[Bomb#20]

Thomas Jefferson wrote this 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."

Those "truths" were not self evident to the British government. They are still not self evident to much of the world. In other words, they are not self evident.

I don't think "self evident" was ever intended to mean "obvious to everyone". It was more like "discernible to all reasonable people who give the matter any serious thought". For instance, it's self evident that supposing a book is the Word of God merely on the grounds that you were told it, by somebody who only believed what he was telling you because he'd been told it, in a thousand-plus-year regress of people repeating it to each other, is not a sound reason to believe it. And yet this isn't obvious to most of the people in the world. Perhaps the British government was not under the control of reasonable people.

It is self evident to me that all men are not created equal. Some are more intelligent than others. Some have non intellectual talents others do not have. Some are more attractive than others. Some have rich parents. Most do not. These differences mean that some people have an easier time achieving for themselves "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," than others.

I don't think "equal" was ever intended to mean "identical in intelligence, talent, beauty and wealth". It was more like "identical in natural rights, deservingness of consideration, and entitlement to government protection".

 

[untermensche]

....I don't think "self evident" was ever intended to mean "obvious to everyone". It was more like "discernible to all reasonable people who give the matter any serious thought"....

All men are created equal.

This is discernible?

There are no rights. There is only power.

Do Americans have the right to peacefully assemble?

I don't think so. The rights of commerce trump these rights, and elections are now part of the right of commerce. Money is equivalent to political speech.

Just as the Constitution intended.

 

[Bomb#20]

....I don't think "self evident" was ever intended to mean "obvious to everyone". It was more like "discernible to all reasonable people who give the matter any serious thought"....

All men are created equal.

This is discernible?

It is possible that Thomas Jefferson would have regarded your not discerning it as evidence against your being a reasonable person.

There are no rights. There is only power.

So when you said we would all be better off if the government supported the rights of unions with more vigor, what the heck were you talking about? When you said we have a minority trying to take away things like the right to have an abortion and the right of homosexuals to marry, what the heck were you talking about?