1 vote

Thought exercise

If the rights are given to you by entity, than it stands to reason that they can be taken away, cue the organized religion or government or group of people. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, the only thing you have is relationships between people and their and your choice to respect them or force them to do what you like. By claiming you have rights, you, in fact is trying to create a system, agreement between people, that you have rights and they should protect them, thus the governments monopoly on force.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Declaration of

The Declaration of Independence, which was adopted by Congress as Law, explains that people are endowed by "their" Creator with rights.

The use of "their" and "Creator" is a key point. It indicates that we, as individuals, get our rights from our Creator. And with "Creator" being used instead of "God" it then expands to mean that you get your rights from your Creator, whatever it is that you consider to be your Creator.

Now for the really important part: no government on the face of this Earth, now, at any point in history or at any point in the future, is more powerful than a "Creator." With that design of the origination of rights, government can NEVER lay claim over them nor try to take them away.


lets break it down and see...

"If the rights are given to you by entity..."
A. Which rights?
B. Which entity?
C. Rights are powers to have something or to act in a certain way and are granted by nature, granted by agreement, or granted by government. To which are we speaking?

"than it stands to reason that they can be taken away"
A. Not necessarily, but it does stand to reason that a greater military force can oppress you and deprive you of your rights.

"cue the organized religion or government or group of people."
A. These would be greater military forces.

A. Yes I do.

"the only thing you have is relationships between people and their and your choice to respect them or force them to do what you like"
A. That's what a right is, a rule governing a relationship, either respected by others or not.

"By claiming you have rights, you, in fact is trying to create a system, agreement between people, that you have rights and they should protect them..."
A. Yes, though I would say respect them and possibly protect them if need be.

"thus the governments monopoly on force."
B.Government has a monopoly on anything it wishes to have a monopoly on and it uses violence to enforce its claim. This needs to be cleared up in the libertarian understanding.
B1. Government can only achieve a monopoly when it has the resources to enact enough violence and achieve compliance...it most assuredly does not have a monopoly on "force" and especially not violence. This conversation is an exercise of force and individuals defend themselves everyday with violence sans the government.

Let's see

I was referring to any rights.

Nature has no ability to grant you rights, only opportunity. Contract or government entity only describes obligations. So no rights are granted there either.

What is the not necessarily part are you referring to? If you have 5 dollars in your pocket, you may either keep it or give it away, in which case you won't have it anymore, or it can be taken from you by force. Latter two requires interaction with other people or groups.

skip this one.

You have no rights, as shown prior if your rights are dependent on others people good will, than what you have is a hope that the others will respect them, and you're the only one that can try to make them. Should you go ask someone else to do it for you, you in fact give up your rights and inter into a contract, that can only grant you obligations.

right is not a rule, it is your preference/expectation which is why it can always be violated, thus it only exists in your mind, and it's based on your expectation of good intentions from the other individual.

monopoly of force is the basis/foundation for the other transgressions of the government. If someone meets you in the dark valley with a gun, and you don't have one, their monopoly on force will negate all of your rights up to and including your life, should they choose to do so.

you're fun to communicate with, too bad you've dropped the previous discussion.


Thanks for saying im fun to communicate with. I think you are trolling because of the ridiculous things you say. Observe:

"what part of the not necessarily are you referring to"
-Read my comment again slowly...you can have a right and be oppressed by a superior military force simultaneously.

"you have is a hope that the others will respect them"
A. "Them" what is the "them" in your sentence referring to?-->rights. TA-DA!
B. Yes, rights must be respected by others. Yes, your rights can be oppressed/suppressed by others. Yes you can have a right and be oppressed simultaneously.

"You have no rights as shown..."
By your supremely flawed logical proof. Not convincing and not logical.
Tonight I am exercising a number of my rights and tomorrow I will too. I will breath fresh and and drink fresh water. Live in my home, drive my car, and complete a contract for a client.

And this tops your ridiculous comments:
"If someone meets you in the dark valley with a gun...their monopoly on force..."
-In this example, he doesn't have a monopoly on force. At all.
I suspect English could be a second language for you because you incorrectly use words, grammar, and phrases. Or maybe you're a kid playing with words. Or a troll. Either way good luck to you. I'll pop your next illogical proof too. If you're sincere, keep working on things. Learn the meaning of words, and choose them carefully when constructing your positions. This one was both weak and poorly written. But I can't tell if you are sincere, so I'm dropping out.

and thus it shall be.

English is not my second language, not even the third. :-)

Your so called innate rights are in reality is what others are willing to recognize and grant you, if you have no ability to enforce them, you don't have them and they can be revoked with no notice. Knock, Knock, papers please. Plain English, no?

Nothing is granted, everything is earned.

Deception by word magic?

Human beings are consistently reproduced with an ability to respond.

One consistent ability to respond is the response by which one human being holds other human beings to an accurate accounting of the responses done by the other human beings.

Holding each other to account for their responsibility consistently produces an accurate human discrimination between that which destroys human life and that which promotes, preserves, makes better, and avoids destroying human life, and those accurate accounts are knowable among human beings as the accurate historical record.

An example of an accurate record of human accounting of how other human beings respond is repeated from generation to generation in the form of a concept called law whereby those actions done by human being whereby one human being will destroy another human being is repeatedly recognized as being morally wrong due to many accurately identifiable responses to such cases of destruction that consistently occur within almost every single example of human being with few exceptions.

In other words, and with great effort to avoid false words that are invented by people who intend to destroy other people through deception, a right, so named, is a natural human condition by which human beings are created with the power required to survive and thrive.

Terms such as inalienable rights, for example, intend to convey, without intent to deceive (destroy) one another, the concept of holding each other to an accurate accounting for their responsibilities as fellow human beings who are being morally human by choice and by their natural state of being moral beings (human moral conscience) internally conflicting at times with their natural tendency to compete for limited resources.

Human reason earned by trial and error, recorded into human memory, uncovers those human ideas and those human actions that preserve, promote, secure, make better, and prolong human existence while employing limited resources in the effective work required to increase the limited resources, and over time, those morally good ideas, and those morally good actions starkly contrast with those inhuman ideas, and those inhuman actions that destroy human life and consume limited resources.


Human beings cooking human infants alive and then eating the cooked human beings

Nurturing babies from infancy until human babies are cooperative, competitive, examples of independent (humans are borne, naturally, dependent) human beings who are themselves fully capable of reproducing the concept of reproducing good thoughts and actions that prove to be good thoughts and actions because bad thoughts and actions, such as burning human babies alive, and eating them, is easily understood as being inhuman, immoral, and not conducive to improved human life over time, whereby human beings help each other survive despite natural causes of human misery and human death.

In other words, if human beings were not created consistently with the power to tell right from wrong the obvious increase in incidence of human examples that cook and eat human babies precludes, or eliminates, the possibility that human beings could ever reproduce beyond a few in number.

Might making right is false, a lie.

Rights are voluntary agreements among volunteers to respond to criminals by holding criminals to an accurate accounting for their crimes, or, in other words, making crime unfordable.

In other words we are born with the understanding of natural rights whereby a sane person does not hire an inhuman being who cooks and eats babies as a baby sitter and then expect the baby not to be cooked and eaten while the parents are out having dinner and a movie; at least not after the first few children were eaten and the "baby sitter" keeps eating the babies despite the increase in a bonus or rise in pay offered to the "baby sitter" if, this time, please, the parents ask the "baby sitter" to please consider the wrong of being paid very well to baby sit the children and instead the "baby sitter" keeps on cooking, and eating, the babies.


that is a pretty good explanation of natural rights

If I may humbly suggest, your writing would benefit with some judicious application of commas.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson


I take all constructive criticism as I see it, with open arms.

A problem arises, however, when I endeavor to improve my writing over time.

I have right now my first book almost ready for publishing and in the process of editing the 170 odd pages I was fortunate to have generous help offered by someone well trained in the use of English Grammar.

My editor took out a lot of commas.

So now I am in "fewer comma" mode.

It may be accurate to say that I go to extremes.




Concise and to the point. I appreciate your effort of trying to explain the concept that you're clearly don't comprehend yourself.

Basis of life outside your person is a human interaction, you choose how to interact with people, energy+intent=result.

Whenever you choose to delegate your responsibility of choice in an interaction to a group of people, you in fact create an association with a monopoly of force, to enforce the decision that was made by that group. Law is an opinion up to the point at which the force is applied to subject someone to it, consent or not.

By pleading to that group for justice you in fact is asking for an injustice in your own favor.

Human babies raised by animals, have no idea of the human social interaction and are accustomed to the rules of the animal society they were raised by. Which shows that the innate rights that you refer to are actually taught by parents.

Josf, please in your future reply's, include less verbal diarrhea, and more substance.

Blind obedience to falsehood without question?

You claim authority over my thoughts, while your words confess a possible blindness to the falsehoods you may believe without question?

"Whenever you choose to delegate your responsibility of choice in an interaction to a group of people,..."

Those who claim that there IS a "group of people" are often those who believe the falsehood that a "group of people" are one thing, whereby one thing is responsible and accountable as one thing.

No such thing is possible.

While each criminal may be able to gain advantage over any number of victims as a result of using the power to convince each victim that a "group of people" are responsible, and a "group of people" are accountable, the victims are perpetually blaming a "group of people" for those crimes perpetrated by individual criminals?

How stupid can the victims get?

The criminals, each one in turn, finds out in due time.

"...you in fact create an association with a monopoly of force, to enforce the decision that was made by that group."

Often is the case that I am singled out as the only one capable of error in reaching the goal of accurate accountability.

Here is another example. While I am being blamed for being stupid, for the crime of offering competitive information that is demonstrably accurate, there is, in this individual case, another example of false accounting done by someone who is obviously, and measurable suffering from blind obedience to falsehood without question, if, in fact, the words quoted contain accurate meaning.

"...you in fact create an association with a monopoly of force, to enforce the decision that was made by that group."

No, if those words mean anything, then those words are false. I do no such that as "you in fact create an association with a monopoly of force, to enforce the decision that was made by that group."

Your words, not mine, claim that that a group can decide, or a group can enforce, or a group can make a deal, or a group can be held responsible, or a group can be held accountable, when I know, for a fact, that no such thing is possible. Human beings are individuals commanding or failing to command individual power of will.

I have other things to do, and I may get back to this present example of blind obedience to falsehood without question.


what is the stuff you're

what is the stuff you're smoking, I would love to try some, so then at least we may talk on the same level of enlightenment.

Which level?

Resort to deception?

That is your example worthy of following blindly without question?

And what happens when someone questions your authority to lead by example as you resort to deception?

You had better step up your game of deception, the competition in that deception market is heating up.

Good luck.


Josf you're a precious

Josf you're a precious resource and a piece of Fate.

must you always be sarcastic?

You have cultivated for yourself the inability to hand out compliments.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Seems to me I complimented

Seems to me I complimented you pretty recently.

Come on now Ed, you gotta start getting some things right.


And I was so sure that compliment was sincere. You got me all cornfuzzled :)

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I am?

I am at times not able to respond with competitive words that reach for greater utility.

Quotes help?

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts."

The concepts of right and wrong were not invented by me so as to give me an advantage over other people in the hope that I can then gain at their expense.

Being wrong for too long, on the other hand, transforms us into beasts by choice?

I am grateful.


Yes, you are. I have never

Yes, you are. I have never seen anyone communicate in such an interesting way.
There must be something to it.

In debt?

Your offer of credit offered to me does place me, in my own voluntary willful employment of my character, my being, my soul, or whatever, into your service, in debt to you.

How can I repay such a debt?

Act in kind?

Inspired by your generous words, to be generous in kind?

Is that not an example of what has been called The Golden Rule?

Is that not the basis of all human, moral, law; going back further than recorded history?


Yours truly