The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

Such nonsense. Real? I desire to put jupiter in my back pocket.

Chomsky made no such claim or inference, in fact he claimed the exact opposite, he supports individual rights and ENFORCING OUR EXISTING LAWS to protect them.

false you read everything through your rose colored false presumption glasses then move your goal posts to pretend they agree with you when no such inference was made and no such conclusion can be drawn.

You disintegrated and completely destroyed your premise when you claimed and declared all/any communication is a construct.

you no longer have an arguable position unless you retract that claim.

Since you claimed all p>q then some p>q and its archetypes are no longer valid arguments.

Apparently you havent caught up yet

 

News flash: that's impossible.

But more to the point, like BHK you desire the 'right' to decide what is criminal behavior.

Nonsense. Chomsky said 'individual rights' (or rather "rights of nature" - an "impenetrable" idea) are a basis for "positive rights" which are human constructs on behalf of universal (not individual) justice. The UN Universal DHR lays out a design for such universal justice and rights. You trying to pretend otherwise is merely a result of your blind "individual sovereignty" ideology.

I always address specific points (see below).

Example? (I thought not...).

OTOH, "I love you" (....ouch) .......is NOT a construct, interestingly, it can be both objective and subjective reality.

Like I said you need to be specific, or you wind up making the ridiculous assertions that I consider all communication to be a 'construct'. Perhaps you are failing to distinguish between a construct and objective reality.

"I love you" - the communication - is real; my 'right' to happiness is a construct, yet my desire to be happy is real ---and inherent in nature

You have the floor ( and stop whining about "changing goal posts", as we drill down deeper... to find a resolution to this debate).

ie, I have shown I do NOT think "all/any communication is a construct", as you asserted.

Refuted above.

 

nose is starting to grow again

 

In the context of your comment (from ages ago) , namely:

....this was my reply (from ages ago):

"the CONTENT of any particular conscious thought by individuals IS constructed"
(note I deliberately omitted your addition of ALL, which was your attempt to obfuscate).

when what I should have said (and meant to say) was:

"Any (but not all) particular conscious thought by individuals MAY BE a construct;

eg 'I have a "right" to happiness'..... is a construct, cf. 'I desire to be happy' which may be objective reality and is certainly subjective reality, not a construct.

.....just to bring the debate up to my most recent post....

That's not debate.

To clarify, I have shown I do NOT think "all/any communication (or all/any conscious thought) is a construct"[/QUOTE] as you wrongly asserted, I think some communication or conscious thought may be a construct.

Note my bolded, you decided to add ALL to ANY, when they have different consequences..... NOW are we clear?

 

PLONK!

Any is a synonym for all and carries the same meaning unless you stipulate a different meaning, you failed to do so.

It is you who is using obfuscation with word games as you duck into one rabbit hole after another to support your failed premise, not me.

I added nothing, I post original quotes. I dont need to cheat, its not my premise that is caught in quick sand, I am not the one moving goal posts all over the map to keep from drowning, that leaves, oh yeh, you.

 

OK, I failed to do so, but now (in my most recent post) I have stipulated the meaning: ie,

"Any (but not all) particular conscious thought by individuals MAY BE a construct;

No, I never deliberately obfuscate (or use word games)....and.....OK perhaps you don't deliberately obfuscate either, so we better stick to the present facts:

ie, I have a desire to be free, nature recognizes no "Right" that I should or will be free.

You added 'ALL' ... i have taken responsibility for letting you slip that in, so ...back to the main debate.

ie, the fact remains, the idea of "inherent natural rights" is a construct, moreover your world view is shown to be based on a delusion of "individual sovereignty", when in nature - by observation - neither of those constructs exists.

,,,demonstrated by the slaughter of an Israeli child and 17 Palestinian children so far in the current flare-up....
resulting from conflict between two delusional religious ideologies/constructs.

...conflict only avoidable with a properly instituted international rules-based system eg an ICJ backed by UNSC without veto.

But you are insisting on absolute national sovereignty - observably a delusion, if war as a means of dispute settlement between nations is to be avoided.

 

You have no 'main' debate, except for moving goal posts all over the map.

That nose just keeps right on growing!

I was the first one to use ALL/ANY and YOU are the one that removed the word all in your response! Now you accuse me of what YOU DID!

You lost the initiative a long time ago, just havent figgered it out yet

 

As expected, you have again regressed to avoiding the main debate ie the idea of "inherent natural rights"; you didn't reply to ONE point in my last post, BECAUSE you can't answer any ONE of those points.

Note: we are not playing a game whose rules are known beforehand and in which the goal posts are fixed; we are (or rather were, but no longer it seems...) debating ideas which may require moving to a new arena - to use your analogy - as the debate progresses.

Go on - have a shot:

I desire to be free, but nature doesn't give a damn and recognizes no such "right" to be free.

 

youve long since lost the initiative, and are going around in circles and calling it a debate.
you need to first pick your arguments up from the ocean floor and fix your boat if you want to continue.
ALL your points have been adderssed and debunked

 

"I desire to be free, but nature doesn't give a damn, and recognizes no such "right" to be free".

Any one?

 

Sorry I dont know anyone named nature.
Is that the guy in the blue house at the end of the block?

 

(I must say I'm disappointed everyone else has abandoned the debate):

The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

ie, rights occurring in nature? or rights which exist naturally?

So, I desire to be free, but the idea that I have a "right" in nature to be free is obviously absurd, by empirical observation of the natural world.

 

after watching you chase your tail and move the goal posts all over the planet while cheerleading your commie agenda? HTH can you blame them?

See, you champion chomsky and contradict him at the same time, chomsky said we in fact are free in nature. Id say you shot yourself in the foot again but you have no feet left to shoot.

 

Well...at least you have soldiered on...(I won't comment on them...)

I agree we are free in nature.... NOT by right, but by being born with survival instincts.

[Chomsky is NOT decisive re this concept of "rights" - which according to him is "impenetrable", as already noted]

Like those newborn turtles racing to the safety of the sea are free, until swooped on by a predator; or a child in the Gaza strip is "free" (though living in the largest prison in the world) until obliterated by exploding munitions...ditto for the one child (so far) in Israel who fell victim to a Hamas rocket.

 

why must you continue to mischaracterize it? impenetrable with respect to understanding it as positive law, listen to what he is saying not what you wish he was saying. ie impossible to legislate natural rights though they are imprisoning us right now exactly as you want them to.

Our rights are stated in the negative in the BOR specifically for that reason!

When you see a lion munching on his dinner you dont question his right to eat it before you approach. Laws of nature keep you alive both with the wild animals and wild humans

 

note my underlined...are you sure you are not the one making that mistake?

As I said to BHK, you, as a individual, just want the right to decide law to suit your own desires.
The postulated "right" to life and liberty (of the individual) is only a ruse to avoid creation of law that actually defends the life and liberty of everyone.

That's why children are dying in Palestine....... because the UNSC has been neutered by your desire to make law according to your own (nation's) desires (though of course the nation is divided on the issue):
link
Alan Dershowitz called Bernie Sanders a 'self-hating Jew' over his stance on Israel-Palestine violence (yahoo.com)

See where your desire to create law according to your own ideology leads you, as opposed to law infused by justice for all?

Interesting that your example takes us back to raw nature in the stone age. Even so, there were and are no rights, just survival instincts. Now, in this age of MAD, things are rather more complicated ... and dangerous, as the mainstream media is fond of pointing out while demonizing China.

Men of course desire something better eg rule of law (including international law), yet even so, self-interested instincts still drive behavior, and rise above the presently weaker desire for universal justice ie Chomsky's 'positive law' - which is why nature's anarchy still reigns across the globe.

Only a commitment to reverence for life (Albert Schweitzer's conception) will change that in the long run (If men don't destroy civilization first, in this age of MAD).

 

type everything said out if you want to understand it

I have the right to decide law to suit my own desires so long as it does not infringe on your right to decide law to suit your own desires

This is the nature of politics when there is more than one person on the planet, understanding the nature of the human condition is a necessity

false, its the nature of the human condition

children are dying because your 'rule of law' fails to mitigate.

making laws does not prevent someone from murdering you, its a false presumption guvmints work doggedly to pound in everyones brain as 'protection', its not.

Thats just jew infighting.

see above

its not better when it fails its purpose as it has

anarchy, which is merely no guv, is the ideal condition for life offering the greatest freedom, of course that has been condemned since it removes the need for 99.9% of da guv when people are peaceful and get along.

 

So, eg, you want all of Jerusalem, I want East Jerusalem; who will adjudicate?

It sure is a necessity, so who is going to adjudicate our competing "rights" which are a consequence of "the human condition'?

So you need to deal with the question of adjudication between competing "rights".

Right again,...and in an age of MAD, how will we manage the human condition, to avoid annihilation of the species?

Surely not by an eternal arms race (which is nature's method via evolution)?

Again you need to deal with the question of adjudication between competing "rights".

No, children are dying because you insist on your individual "right" to decide what is right...

Correct, but law does provide sanctions for murder....sanctions which will most definitely take away your (illusory 'right' to) liberty, and even your life, in jurisdictions where the death penalty applies.

Correct; as Chomsky pointed out, most governments are more concerned with their own security than the welfare of the citizens, hence all the secrecy. But that is not an argument to reject the principle of good government via rule of law on behalf of ALL citizens.

No, Bernie has right on his side, ie justice for both Jews and Palestinians, eg via UN resolutions 181 and 242.

It fails its purpose because you, as an individual - like many individuals - think you have an illusory 'right' to choose what is right. In fact we all DESIRE to choose what is best for ourselves FIRST. (remember "America First" (!)....same desire applies for individuals)

Once we accept rule of law to promote well-being for everyone, government can begin to function as it should, ie on behalf of the well-being of the governed, not for its own security.

The remainder of this post points to the significance of particular economic systems in creating a situation where "people are peaceful and get along"

Actually, people have the potential to be peaceful and get along, if everyone has access to basic human needs like actually contributing to the community's development, with above-poverty reward for that contribution. That's impossible with the current neoliberal economic system which pits individual against individual in "free" markets, taking no account of differing individual capacities to successfully compete in such markets, which in any case postulate a level of un/underemployment to control wages (and prices) inflation (aka the NAIRU).

Further, we all - including all nations - have to trade with one-another, to promote well-being between and within all nations.

That's also impossible with the current neoliberal economic system; a properly constituted WTO (to avoid currency and trade wars) is necessary, just like a properly constituted UNSC without veto, to avoid military conflict is necessary, to maintain global peace.

"It's the economy, stupid".

 

call a court of the nations, decide on whatever uncoerced contracts exist

same for state level

people by the people, state by state

no individual can destroy the species without state power

again that is state level, not individual

My rights are not the state, you appear to be confused

pointing out the disconnect between state and individual people

my personal right as a human has no bearing on the state, they are or have become powers unto themselves.

We? Please confine 'we' to the the state, 'we' have no control over the actions of state, democracy as chomsky alluded is a myth.

and the banks control world economy, now you drilled down to the source of all the problems you have been complaining about, and we already have a worldwide banking cabal, no need for 2 of them.

 

No.... which allows me to identify the source of your confusion.

Your "rights" - which are really only your desires, and everyone's desires AS INDIVIDUALS - naturally gravitate to one side or the other in a political 50/50 Left-Right tendency among the population.

Therefore your desires, PLUS the roughly 50% of the population who coalesce around your political persuasion, IS the state because the government (by slim majorities) in democracies represents the ENTIRE nation.

 

Nope, actually its your error.
you rooty toot the 'ideal' AS the real, its not.
Its a facade.
No guv performs as intended because of corruption.
This country was intended to be capable of being made over by the 'People'.
Nothing could be further from the truth, the civil war proved it is not possible.
That is lifes realities, all guvs are corrupt.
The best guv is a guv where the people actually have the ability to get change through.
You do not stand a snowballs chance in hell in the US and even less in the UK.
The people are the state is a nice fantasy many people have been led to believe.
....and you want to create yet a bigger state with one over reaching voice for the whole world.
* Frying pan to Fire *

 

What in nature binds you from freedom?

 

Im curious, what does binds you 'from' freedom mean?

 

nature has nothing to do with freedom. freedom is a man made concept, which does not exist in the natural world outside of a human construct.

 

so if we remove man from the equation, a lion has no 'freedom' because he is not 'free' to eat anything it can kill...or do lions have human constructs governing them as well?
.