Many on the Left seem to have no regard for Natural Rights

What natural rights are you talking about that supposedly annoy them?

 

The problem for the far right is that they want respect for natural rights (except for freedom of association, freedom of sexual activity, freedom of hiring, freedom of crossing borders, freedom of economic exchange, etc.), but they cannot figure out how to have that and not criminalize abortion so that they can exact vengeance of those who have abortions.

In a free society, abortion would be a social dilemma. You can't really prove that someone had one, nor do you have any right to know someone's medical status, their medical discussions, and their reasons for seeking medical care. In order to outlaw abortion, they must dispenses with all medical rights and create areas of privilege instead. The same sort of thing they whine about the left doing in many other cases.

 

Because they presume the right to enforce moral conformity. For instance, why can I not trade my labor for a wage voluntarily? Why am I a victim even though I believe that I am treated fairly? The communist would declare that I have no such agency, meaning that my right pursue my own conscious is less than his right to force his conscious on mine.

From where comes the right to force obligations on people? Is there some mystical or divine authority that imbues people with that right?[/QUOTE]

 

Consent. Everyone owns their own consent. That is our nature as sentient beings capable of recognizing our own ability to consent and the ability of others to consent. No one has the right to violate the consent of another who is behaving peacefully.

Do you believe that you have the right, in some cases, to force yourself on others including to make them conform to your morals, values, or preferences? If so, then how did that right come to be?

 

I'm a believer in strict separation of "church and state". There should be no reference to any religion or religious idea or "god" in any government function or in the formation of any legislation. Just state what rights are being advocated.

So Kaz, have you posted a list of the "natural rights" you are defending? If not, then please do. I'd like to present my views on each.

 

That was part one. Now on to part two.

How do you know that's a "natural right"? You'll need something more than "I feel that is the case", which is all you've given us so far.

Sure. It's called being an adult. Sometimes I am the boss of you, sometimes you are the boss of me. Grownups can handle that without throwing tantrums.

 

Would "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" be part of "natural rights?"

If so......

then it is true that the extreme political left has close to zero respect for natural rights.... or natural law.......

the extreme political left want to deprive most Americans of either natural rights or natural law.... and President Donald J. Trump has been getting in their way......so.... they are willing to resort to any tactic to attempt to prevent him from becoming President of the United States again in 2024!

 

And this is why the right loves their guns so much. They know that even if push comes to shove, they still get to cram their garbage ideas down our throats even with a minority.

 

That sounds like a whole lot of projection.
The other side of that is: 'This is why the left wants to take away guns. So they can cram their ideas down throats and the population can't oppose them'

 

1. No one that I know of wants to take ALL guns, just the ones that are specifically designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.
2. It has nothing to do with trying to force ideas, it has to do with keeping people safe. But far be it from me to take away your right to device of mass killing to help prevent......well...mass killings.

 

What ideas are the minority trying to cram down your throat?

Mostly I just see people who want to keep more of the fruits of their own labor out of the grubby hands of the ignorant collective and less regulation via greedy commitees over what folks can do with their own property. But if you're worried someone is gonna truncheon you with their Bible or chain you down to listen to their conspiracy theories, maybe you should get a gun of your own and make them think twice about it?

 

so someone wants to ban all guns except for a single shot rifles you're splitting hairs here.

You can do a mass killing with any semi-automatic magazine fed or double action revolver so that's just about every gun you can think of except for a single shot rifles so they want the ban all guns.

It's just the supreme Court is bitch slapping them away from the first step. This is a good thing.

 

It's not really so they can cram their ideas down our throat ultimately it said I can kill us that's the point that's what all governments do when given too much power. Through either genocide or famine or both.

 

Fear and needing protection and safety is how dictators come to power.

They tricked the gullible into believing part of the population is out to get them. And of course this particular contingent of the society is so incredibly self-absorbed they believe it.

I've heard people say that people who support the second amendment are terrorists I bet anybody that does and talks about it is on a list because I'm willing to bet a few government agencies think such people are terrorists.

That's all just to scare the simple.

 

If you're an American and you're not on a govt list yet, you're freedoming wrong.

 

That's my thought on it too.

 

Which “God”? And why not just go with the “International Human Rights Law”?
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-and-mechanisms/international-human-rights-law

PS is body autonomy a “natural right”?

 

By asking that question, it seems to be an attempt on your part to deflect and change the topic.

That seems to have nothing to do with the point.

(I can however say that any law politically created by a body of humans is naturally more arbitrary than "law" that derives from a philosophical school of thought, if we're trying to be logically consistent)

In the way that you are thinking about it, that seems to be an issue that is separate from the issue in the opening post. (Answering that controversial question does not have anything to do with the point of what I brought up in the opening post)

I'm not saying that the questions you ask are not worthwhile, but they are just tangential and off-topic (not essentially on-topic) to the subject of the opening post.

 

We go with natural right because that philosophy doesn't put rights in the hands of some international committee that might decide tomorrow you shouldn't exist.

When you put government in charge of rights that means you don't have any. Rights are limits on the government. A boundary they must work within.

 

No - in YOUR OP it states

Which “God”?

Hmmm once again dodging the question “is “bodily autonomy a “natural right”

I will also add that there is already an international bill of rights so why not just don’t them?

 

You seem to have difficulty understanding and focusing on what the point is.

That is not needed for you to understand the point and consider the issue in general.

I'm dodging it because it is off-topic, and you intend it to refer to a very controversial specific issue.
Start a separate thread.

The only issue that might be relevant to this thread is whether you think conservatives have been specifically trying to use natural rights to ban abortion.
If you want to discuss that, then we can discuss it in this thread.

 

That's because natural rights don't exist...

If they did, they wouldn't require man to invent, codify, and enforce them.

The only rights that exist are the ones we create and maintain, which means rights vary depending on location. If you don't believe me, go ask some folks from totalitarian states how much their natural rights are helping them.

I get that this idea is a holdover from when everyone attributed everything to God, but that doesn't mean we need to cling to that kind of nonsense. It's unnecessary, and actually leads to folks not understanding how the real world works.

 

It's our nature to recognize consent in ourselves and in others. That's why the term "natural" is used. Not because it comes from nature as in the environment.

Can you argue a right to violently control a peaceful person? No. No matter what, it would be subjective and in violation of the consent of that person. That person would claim their own right not to be controlled. Which right is superior? If it's neither one, then the violent party is imposing without objective right. If it's the peaceful person, then they are objectively right to own their consent. If it's the violent party, then from where comes the superiority of their right? Some would say "Democracy" as if 50%+1 imbues someone with divine superiority to other humans.

It's interesting that they never carry this over to personal relationships. They deserve money and to be treated as little princes or princesses, but they never suggest that government control the imbalance that is common in personal relationships. Unless they are incels. It's why I call socialists "fincels."

 

Who is "we" and how does one person get the right to violently control another person? Is there some universal force in which a group of people gain a superior right to violate the consent of one person? Is gang-rape rightful because the group has a right that is superior to the individual?

Natural rights come from the nature of humans to recognize their own rights and that of others. it's all predicated on consent. No need for a deity.

Yet you believe in magical things, such as the right for some people to violently control other people and to absolve their followers of responsibility for their actions; it's something that doesn't exist in reality. Statism is just another religion, and possibly the oldest and deadliest of all.

 

I disagree, and fortunately the Founders disagreed with you, too. Our inherent and inalienable natural rights do exist and we are able to discern them through our faculty of Reason.

They do exist, which is why the Founders and Framers wrote a Constitution affirming them and instituted a government tasked with securing them. They didn't invent our rights.

We don't create rights. What we create are governments, social contracts, constitutions, laws, regulations and privileges.

As for totalitarian regimes, they are considered totalitarian precisely because they deprive people of their natural rights.

With all due respect, I get from your comments that you don't know much about this idea and its origins at all. If you're generally interested in learning about it, I would recommend that you begin by reading Brian Tierney's The Idea of Natural Rights. You'll find things like the Corpus Juris Civilis and the examinations into the multiple meanings of the term ius, which have nothing to do with the attribution of anything to God.