The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: So if "free will" or "natural rights" do not come from a source.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It all boils down to free (see in situ)

So if "free will" or "natural rights" do not come from a source.

....superior to man, then in the context of what you have described above, explain the natural rights and free will rights of a being vastly superior to yourself, to whom you are insignificant.

From that being's perspective, it would be his natural right to dispose of you and your resources as he sees fit, you're "rights" being so inconsequential [to him] to not even be worthy of note.

To that being, there is no "contract" with you and why would that being be willing to enter into such a contract with a proverbial ant?

I.e. law of the jungle.

The only way to justify that your rights are "natural" is that both his and your rights come from an authority superior to your both, such authority who has also specified that neither shall murder nor steal from the other. Further, that one should treat the other as one would like to be treated themselves (non-agression principle).

This is how the founding fathers saw things and this is what motivated them, these ideas having for the first time been propagated through the enlightenment, which itself was instigated by the masses having the ability to read the bible FOR THEMSELVES rather than getting preached at, thereby discovering material therein that was absolutely revolutionary and which obliterating the concept of the "divine rights of kings."