Do "rights" really exist or are they imaginary?

You asked one question, "If rights are imaginary, then what is the legitimate purpose of government?"

My answer:

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect people from each other. It is to protect what I want from interfering with those things that you want and vice versa.

Some people think that we can live in a "voluntary" society. But, they usually begin to invoke some sort of mechanism intended to protect life and property. Whatever form that mechanism takes, it is by the above definition government.
More actually, look for the "?" marks. ;)

I thought you were talking about what government is, not what it should be. Does it work?

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

Do you have a SWAG estimate of what percentage of human interactions ( society ) are "voluntary" over all?

Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
We hold these truths to be self-evident
Yes these rights exist.
You either see it or you don't.

If you don't find it to be self-evident you may want to examine yourself, and find out what your problem is.

LOL.

Self-evident huh?

Intellectual cop-out. If you can't defend your rights rationally and provide a real explanation, YOU are the one who needs to re-examine things. The "self-evident" defense is the weakest defense of liberty that exists.
 
Rights are a philosophical construction. They "exist" insomuch as they are put into practice.
 
Can you provide evidence without using faith or god?

Good question. I think so, but I don't have time to organize my thoughts well right now. It does tie into the existance of God, but that's not the substance of the evidence, merely another related conclusion.

I just wanted to say, I realize you asked the right quesiton, I'll try to respond in the next few days -- I may put the whole thing together into the existance of god/non-physical thread and link here.
 
Last edited:
Great ploy.
For those that want to scrap the Constitution and to impost some form of collective "rights" the first step is to get rid of God. Not unsurprising.
The religion of socialism (humanism) is incompatible with individual rights.

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.

Jut get rid of this and the rest falls apart.

I expect that they will do it. In fact, that has been predicted, and we are witnessing the end of this attempt at liberty, but I will still resist it.

I hope you enjoy your socialist utopia while it lasts. I don't expect that to be long.
 
Last edited:
Quite logically, if there is no creator, then there are no innate rights. In the absence of a God, might makes right.
Well, I'm an atheist and I believe in inalienable rights. I believe that our rights do not need to be granted by anyone, we just have them. "Creator" can mean your God or the deist God of the founders or whatever. The premise, the point of this country is that we all have them naturally and they don't need to be justified to anyone.
 
Well, I'm an atheist and I believe in inalienable rights. I believe that our rights do not need to be granted by anyone, we just have them. "Creator" can mean your God or the deist God of the founders or whatever. The premise, the point of this country is that we all have them naturally and they don't need to be justified to anyone.

I guess I could see natural right from the Atheist point of view. Everyone craps and eats out of the same orifices. Why is it some get to tell others what their rights are? Does it go something like that?
 
Well, I'm an atheist and I believe in inalienable rights. I believe that our rights do not need to be granted by anyone, we just have them. "Creator" can mean your God or the deist God of the founders or whatever. The premise, the point of this country is that we all have them naturally and they don't need to be justified to anyone.

Never thought about that... your "creator" could be your parents... and like a monarchy... your rights are inherited from your parents.
Your parents have rights...you inherit those same rights...
 
Great ploy.
For those that want to scrap the Constitution and to impost some form of collective "rights" the first step is to get rid of God. Not unsurprising.
The religion of socialism (humanism) is incompatible with individual rights.

Jut get rid of this and the rest falls apart.

I expect that they will do it. In fact, that has been predicted, and we are witnessing the end of this attempt at liberty, but I will still resist it.

I hope you enjoy your socialist utopia while it lasts. I don't expect that to be long.

Not really. The first step for socialists is to replace God/gods with the State.

Anarcho-capitalists and libertarians like myself reject the legitimacy of the State in favor of the individual. The individual can worship (or not) as he pleases, so long as he does not infringe on the the life or liberties of another individual(s). :D This is very much compatible with individual rights.

How is it that you equate humanism with Socialism? I've read about Socialism, and I don't see the absolute connection. :confused:
 
Great ploy.
For those that want to scrap the Constitution and to impost some form of collective "rights" the first step is to get rid of God. Not unsurprising.
The religion of socialism (humanism) is incompatible with individual rights.



Jut get rid of this and the rest falls apart.

I expect that they will do it. In fact, that has been predicted, and we are witnessing the end of this attempt at liberty, but I will still resist it.

I hope you enjoy your socialist utopia while it lasts. I don't expect that to be long.

I agree that these are the rights that should properly be upheld, but I choose to construe the word "Creator" as "parents". I am human because of them, therefore I have all the rights of a human has.

I will let you believe there is one God if you let me believe there is none, deal?
 
How is it that you equate humanism with Socialism? I've read about Socialism, and I don't see the absolute connection. :confused:

Not any one place but here and there over the years I have seen connections.
Though the idea of removing and replacing God is a very old idea. Replace God as supreme and make Man supreme.
This is a good place to start for some connections.
http://www.thebible1.net/biblicaltheism/organhuman.htm

The early harbingers of humanism were followed in 1933 by the publication of the first Humanist Manifesto. It was signed by thirty-four influential national leaders – the first and the most notable of which was John Dewey. This document rejected traditional Christian beliefs in favor of naturalism, materialism, rationalism and socialism. It also declared that the purpose of humanism is to evaluate, transform, control, and direct all institutions and organizations by its own value system. In short, this was a declaration that humanists intended to produce a cultural revolution by removing Christianity from its foundational underpinning of American society and by substituting humanistic religious beliefs in its place. Later major documents that would further specify humanistic ideologies and goals include Humanist Manifesto II (1973), A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980), and A Declaration of Interdependence: A New Global Ethics (1988).
Here is a quick Google search.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Fabian+society+humanism&btnG=Search
Look around and see if there is anything of interest.
 
Last edited:
Not any one place but here and there over the years I have seen connections.
Though the idea of removing and replacing God is a very old idea. Replace God as supreme and make Man supreme.
This is a good place to start for some connections.
http://www.thebible1.net/biblicaltheism/organhuman.htm

oic. Yes, radicalism like that coming from any philosophy tends to be destructive. :(:p Thanx for the link, sir.
 
oic. Yes, radicalism like that coming from any philosophy tends to be destructive. :(:p Thanx for the link, sir.

You are welcome.
Here is some I just ran across.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20010816.htm
The problem with America's educational system began with the birth of socialism and given impetus by federal government involvement. Lenin, one of the world's leading experts on socialism, tells us - “Communism is socialism in a hurry.” Socialism, therefore, is communism by gradualism rather than by revolution. The socialist “Fabian Society,” the forerunner of most socialist groups in America, had as their motto “Make Haste Slowly.” “Democratic Socialism” became the battle cry to socialize the United States of America. The socialists' goal was to “permeate and penetrate,” then control this nation from deep within. Their first target in America was our children through public instruction.

In the U.S. their followers would use language as their first line of attack and deceit. They would wear no badge nor socialist label, but were to call themselves “liberal,” “progressive” and even “moderate.” Words were the weapon of choice for this new war. By changing and shifting word meanings the socialists could cover their true purpose. Everything would be done under the banners of “reform” and “social justice,” suggesting all was for the public good, for humanitarian reasons, for true democracy -- and finally -- for the children. The buzzwords of socialism were then, and are today, “social” and “democracy” (i.e. social science, social studies and socialization of the child). Robert Conquest observed, “a communist never does anything under his own name that he can do under someone else's.”

In the early 1900's, because of unrest in Europe, thousands of socialists flocked to America for safety. Large numbers held degrees in the fields of psychology, sociology and psychiatry (behavioral sciences, dealing with behavior and [social] change). Many went on to become college and university professors.

Norman Thomas, socialist and member of the Civil Liberties Union, boldly told the world, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

The story of how the socialists took over the American educational establishment would fill a book; so let us just listen to their own words.

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the 'Humanist Manifesto' and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America's teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”
 
Quite logically, if there is no creator, then there are no innate rights. In the absence of a God, might makes right.

That just does not make a lick of sense to me.

See I am agnostic. And while in my adolescents I resorted to violence to settle disputes, I have lived the majority of my life in peace. And plan on maintaining such a stance. Now I'm a little self righteous. For example I do believe that cold blooded murderers and Rapist should be executed. But for some reason I believe a lot of christian folks could agree with that. I could be wrong.

Now it may be hard to believe. But god is not necissary to understand a value of relationship with your neighbor that provides peace, and prosperity. And it's self-evident because I exist.
 
lol.

Rights as you imply do not exist. The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force. Existence does not impart rights on man; mans society or self allots right to himself through his wielded force, or an atmosphere of freedom defended by his fellows force.

That's the best way I can put it.
 
Last edited:
lol.

Rights as you imply do not exist. The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force. Existence does not impart rights on man; mans society or self allots right to himself through his wielded force, or an atmosphere of freedom defended by his fellows force.

That's the best way I can put it.

The right to do things comes from your ability to do so either with others approval or despite that approval with your own ability for force.
:D


:confused:
 
Back
Top