I just left class after a discussion about natural rights

[7960]

Originally Posted by Pocono Pete

I say that is enough evidence to state with confidence that fundamental rights (life, liberty, property) are inherent and inalienable.

You just said the rights of men are inalienable because men said so.

That's akin to saying wives are always right because wives say so.

[Fed Up]

From an anarcho-capitalist point of view...

Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard

Fed Up

[Pocono Pete]

Originally Posted by 7960

You just said the rights of men are inalienable because men said so.

Rights have no significance to man in a state of nature, there is no entity to claim injury to or prosecute for violation. It is only upon entering society that rights become claimable, actionable and of vital importance. Our founding fathers, in forming the structure of this government sought to limit the extent of its ability to harm rights by delineating areas that a government, at least one defined as legitimate, has no orbit of power. If government does act in an illegitimate fashion that government looses its legitimacy to govern and would be subject to the people's right to rescind their consent to be governed. It's not that some group could not behave in a fashion to injure rights, it's just that no one could claim to exercise that power legitimately.

Declaring rights to be endowed by the "Creator" is merely an effusive, grandiose way of stating that the rights of the people pre-exist the institution of government that they ordained and established to protect those rights. It instills a mindset and establishes a hierarchy - in the hopes of never suffering the mindset, or worse, the condition that our rights are granted, given, conferred or otherwise established BY government.

Again, because it says it so eloquently (and that it shows the principles of the Declaration of Independence are applied to, and used to, illuminate the principles of the Constitution):

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Man can define what he considers legitimate governance by holding certain areas excepted out of any governmental power. Whether you want to call those exceptions rights, liberty, anti-powers or begonias is merely semantics.

Originally Posted by 7960

That's akin to saying wives are always right because wives say so.

Wife is always right because she keeps honey in her pants and I am a hungry bear.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Pocono Pete

Rights have no significance to man in a state of nature, there is no entity to claim injury to or prosecute for violation. It is only upon entering society that rights become claimable,

So if there's no man, rights exist but they're not claimed? And the only way to claim them is when one man meets another?

Declaring rights to be endowed by the "Creator" is merely an effusive, grandiose way of stating that the rights of the people pre-exist the institution of government...

This supports what I said just said. Right?

BTW, I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing ), I'm asking.