Do we have "natural" rights?

Are you being purposefully sarcastic? lol

Your'e limited by nature, is what I'm saying. Either by your own "nature" (as in, whatever your brain is wired like), by physical laws, by the "nature" and innate personalities of other entities which can make "decisions", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Even if you consider some entities as having "free will", that doesn't mean their lives are not entirely dependent on nature.

 

Why would you? And as you said, it's a "want". Not an objective law. Not any more than saying "a good time is when you do some crack and get your dick sucked by a pro" is an objectively true statement.

 

No. Just digging into your rhetoric.

I don't see how that's relevant to your statement that "nature grants rights."
Can you clarify further?

 

Good question. Do you want to be a rational, civilized person, or a barbarian who acts according to emotion?

When you say that something "should" be a certain way, do you want that statement to be objective, or a logical contradiction when examined rigorously?

So what if it's a want? I want science to be a rigorous examination of nature. I apply the scientific method because I want to. Does that mean that the scientific method is subjective? No. Similar with a system of ethics. Ethics can be objective, even if it's not possible to follow them. You fall for the common fallacy of believing that just because something is created in the human mind, it must be subjective.

 

Because you're at the mercy of nature. No, nature is not "cognizant" so to speak, but you're still completely at it's mercy.

 

More rhetoric. If nature is not cognizant, then it can't be merciful, just as it can't grant anything. It just is. I think we all recognize that nature just is. In fact, that is the point of natural law philosophy. To start with, man, by nature, has self-ownership.

 

That depends on how you use the word.

Fact: if no net force is acting on a body, it "should" maintain it's velocity, in both magnitude and direction.

Opinion: if a guy takes money from a bank, he "should" be made to give it back.

Fact: in a closed system, energy "should" be conserved over time, and entropy "should" either increase or stay the same.

Opinion: taxation "should" be mandated.

No, but it means that if someone else wants the scientific method to NOT be used for whatever reason or no reason at all, they're not objectively incorrect for wanting that; they just don't share your want.

Statements that are "created" (i.e. conceived of) by a processor (human or computer) can be objectively true or false, or subjective, depending on how they're described; see above with facts vs. opinions.

 

Your mind "just is"; it's a combination of chemicals and lipids and proteins, and unless you believe in the supernatural, your mind is nothing more than those physical things which act according to physical law because they're not above anything physical.

The only way around this is to mention "synergy".

"Ownership"? Objectively speaking, what you mean to say is "control"?

 

true however you have no place to adjuicate matters of natual law since the government courts only hear commercial, civil, equity and admiralty.

keep in mind the supreme court has said in many cases that the 10 amendment apply to the states NOT you... so now what?

 

About subjective social views, you could say the same about anything. The fact is that the philisophical concept of "human rights" (e.g. rights owed simply by being a human) is one shared by the global community and nearly every society on the planet (excluding cannibals). You are arguing that because rights are a philisophical concept that they don't exist? But such concepts do exist and have effects on the world, whether or not you consider them to be "real."

A color blind person can claim colors don't exist, that doesn't make it a fact. Reality is perception. The concept of "natural rights" part of our social contract in this country, as well as our allies, so it exists the same way "law" or "religion" exists, as a concept. Not sure why anyone would deny that.

 

A normative statement supported by rigorous logic. It's easy enough to prove mathematically.

Why? If rights are subjective, then ownership of it transfers by theft if he's not caught.

The correct phrase would be "I prefer, given my own values, that the money be given back." Using words like "should" suggest that there is an objective truth behind it and you will get caught in a contradiction if forced to try to prove your reasoning on the assumption that rights are subjective.

Fair enough. But that does not change the fact that the method itself is objective, that is, free from bias, and that which is derived by using it is objective.

 

That is the nature of ownership, control.

 

Use whatever means are available to spread the message of the nature of man, rights, and government. Speak truth to power. The Constitution is a wash, we need to get past it.

 

If colour is wavelength of a certain frequency then colour does exist, if colour is our experience of said wavelength it doesn't exist outside the mind. So you argue that objective rights exist as a result of consensus?

That's my job Ken.....

 

Of course we do. And they are as follows:
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Property

Now all three are very broad, and purposefully so. All other rights are branches of these, including speech, religion, firearm ownership, etc. But the one common thread among these rights is that they existed before and outside of the State. A right, loosely defined, is something that can not be taken from you. This is why it is easy to see how vapid the claims that the American Left makes today are. Healthcare is not a right, because one does not have a abstract healthcare to be taken away from them. In fact, by guaranteeing healthcare, the State infringes on the actual rights of others. Healthcare is nothing more than the fruits of the labor of others (doctors, nurses, HMO's, pharmaceutical companies, etc.) By guaranteeing healthcare, the State has forced these healthcare professionals to dispose of their property, both intellectual and real property, in a way that would not necessarily desire to do so. This is an infringement of the right to property, as these individuals are not allowed to dispose of said property as they see fit, but also of liberty, as when you are forced to work for another against your will, even if you are paid, you are a slave. The same is true of every other "positive right." Examples include housing, employment, "recreation", and the list goes on. "Positive rights" exist only by taking from others, and are consequently no rights at all.

 

We have the right to do as we please as long as it doesn't affect someone else.

 

You are forgetting a couple natural rights. Although John Locke never includes pursuit of happiness in his Social Contract theory, he cites in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding:

Locke makes the distinction that liberty manifests not from the pursuit of happiness in general, but from 'real happiness'.

In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke puts pursuit of happiness alongside life and liberty as natural rights, and calls it '...health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things.' From this, one realizes why Jefferson does not include property in the Declaration of Independence. At the same time, one also realizes that pursuit of happiness goes beyond ownership of property. George Mason epitomizes such in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted about one month before release of the Declaration of Independence. He posits in Article I:

The other natural right Locke cites, in this case, in Two Treastises of Government is revolution. Like Jefferson, Locke believes that a government which does not fulfill the interests of its people deserve to be overthrown.

Lastly, in regards to the other 'rights' you mention, many of them are not actually rights, but freedoms. All freedoms, however, do manifest from natural rights, namely liberty.

 

That is too ambiguous to be meaningful. What do you mean by "affect"? All actions potentially affect someone else. You've established a standard by which almost any activity can be banned now.

 

I think he means harm, by harm, that which is caused by force or fraud.