Objective, Inalienable Natural Rights - Without Authority

[highwaysong007]

This is WHY they are un-a-LIEN-able rights... not un-alienable rights.

you can waive them... but NO ONE can put a lien on them.

[heyheymonkees]

As you said, natural rights exist in humans by virtue of their nature. I respectfully disagree that nature is only an internal and not an external force. Being that Locke and other thinkers of the enlightenment considered God and nature as nearly synonyms (or at least symbiotic), I would respectfully contend that God, also, is both internal and external to humans. Therefore God and the natural rights derived from such a concept, is objectively verifiable. What do you think of this idea?

[GStolyarovII]

@heyheymonkees Thank you for your comment. If one takes the pantheist view that God = Nature (which was indeed held by some Enlightenment thinkers), then I have no fundamental differences with the position you articulated. However, to me, in such a case, the very use of the word "God" would then be redundant, since "Nature" would suffice to describe the domain in which rights exist. My critique here is leveled at the use of a *personified* God to explain the origin of rights.

[heyheymonkees]

@GStolyarovII

Cool.

[anastamotic]

I have always enjoyed how Rand ignored centuries of Philosophy, and some of the most basic problems of Philosophy, in favor of supposing that by purely stating her preferences she had proven something.

[JohnScott700]

Locke didn't need God. When I first read Locke 20 years ago, I read it that way. After studying him extensively, he is simply saying that natural law (as opposed to moral law - he drew a distinction) indicated that each man owned his own body and labor. Basically, he offered us a near-tautological "if I don't give you the right to do something to me, then you don't have a right to do something to me."

As such, he based rights on consent and not moral theory.

[GStolyarovII]

@JohnScott700 I agree with you that Locke's theory can function splendidly without invocation of a deity; later natural law thinkers were able to explicitly make that separation. Locke, however, probably had to insert God into his theory (along with a strong dose of anti-Catholic and anti-atheist rhetoric) in order to appease the establishment of his time (the Anglican regime of William and Mary) and prevent his already quite radical work from being censored by the religious authorities.

[Califacience]

@JohnScott700

Everyone sees the warts of others more clearly, but make no mistake, the Human nature basis for rights is the MOST unsupportable of all theories of right.

[Superlibertytv]

Our American political ideology that you describe is an abstract idea. The only way to create a stable idea like ours is to educate the masses of the ideology. However, today the KGB runs the show and we have adopted the ideology of Marxism instead and that is what the masses are taught instead. I might be later lined up against a wall and shot for my beliefs, but I will spread our original American ideology as long as I have my life. That is the most we can do.

[waypor1]

I have written a book that I need to get published that explains natural rights based upon human perception; which is written based upon the transfers of natures in the form of purpose in technology which is also related to what Marshal Mcluhan wrote in the laws of media etc. This gets realy easy people because these things are self evident,,,,The reason it says Inalienable means "non transferable" We can continue being ignorant and dumbed down which has everything to do with the insanity;

[lagduftothemax]

I enjoyed this video but i wish you addressed the camera (and your audience) when speaking.

[VeritasTruthEmet]

Individuals / agents do not have inherent rights. Rights can only become part of the equation when other variables such as social contract and specific maxims of social order bring the notion of 'rights' into existence as a necessary and contingent component of theory.

[VeritasTruthEmet]

To presume or assert that 'rights' exist as an objective fact is to venture into the realm of insanity. There is absolutely no logical basis supporting the existence of 'rights' whatsoever. There is no objective way to determine which 'rights' are natural for none are truly present. If one is to rationally argue for the existence of individual rights that objectively exist in the absence of an authority that specifies and grants them then evidence must be presented. You have not done so.

[waypor1]

Hey look I have a plan to take this country back from the machine are you interested? My writing is based upon a science in what I call egonomics which explains many things especially communication breakdowns due to "Ideology"; Ideaology is based in the lack of definition of purpose I have defined purpose in which is the basis to a center of principles; Ideals create slavery and money is a human extension in the loss of foraging natures, if you want more info let me know because this will happen

[filto]

Very nice video. Totally agree with what you are saying.

[thorsmitersaw]

Whats with classical liberals and bow ties? :-P

good video

[ConservativeKen]

Natural Rights is a distortion of a Christian doctrine, Natural Law.

If you have no belief in God, how can any right be "natural?" "Rights" is a NORMATIVE (moral) concept, which means it is man-made (not natural).

Without a Supreme Arbiter, all "right" would be subjective and normative, but not natural.

Unfortunately, GStolyarovII fell into the rationalist trap of reification. Just because something has a name does not make it real.

Concepts exist in the mind, not in the body.

[waypor1]

God is an "ideology" and conceptual assertation, God isnt the issue the people with no money are the issue because america is failing her people

[PatrickLars]

I smell Nietzsche Work here!

[FukYoMomma]

GStolyarovII claims to have inherent rights, but his claim would not save him from the predations of the powerful or the designs of the crafty.

If I beat the stew out of GStolyarovII, will he pout and exclaim "I have my rights," and all of his wounds will heal themselves instantly?

GStolyarovII is guilty of reification. Just because a concept has a name does not make the concept real.

[ConservativeKen]

What evidence exists to prove the existence of Natural Rights?

Your life can be taken from you, but never restored.

Your liberty can be taken from you, and your lost years are gone forever.

Your property can be confiscated. You may or may not be compensated.

The Holocaust disproves your "axiomatic and self-evident" argument. Your argument is DOGMATISM without example or evidence.

Might enforces Right in a State of Nature, but you cannot prove that a State of Nature ever existed.

[PureLiberalChallenge]

Individual and human rights are those which every individual and human possesses by his very individual and human nature. This argument is essentially axiomatic and self-evident. A right to act freely and utterly as you choose is natural, normal, inherent, intrinsic, ineluctable, and inalienable.

You can do absolutely as you wish. But so can your fellow person. Thus the natural rights of man involve some very large element of reciprocity and equality.

Great video!

[Bellator656]

"Individual and human rights are those which every individual and human possesses by his very individual and human nature." It's human nature to kill things, so I probably have the natural right to murder you and take your property, right?