Comments on: The True Nature of Natural Rights

By: The land is our heritage « freewillobjector

The land is our heritage « freewillobjector — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:54:18 +0000

[...] http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/the-true-nature… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized [...]

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:33:28 +0000

The tree had a right to grow, the rock had a right to sit there, the soil had a right to exist with all its water. The none of these rights could be restricted since each one was living free of any control so nothing can suspend the rights of another. The tree's right to grow could not be infringed on in any way and the execution of that right trampled the right of the others. If the rock was to hard and the tree could not penetrate it then the tree's right to grow was trampled on. IF the soil limited the use of its water it would stop the tree from growing. No right can be suspended by the will or force of another and because of this the rights of one can't be suspended even if it infringed on the rights of another in the process.

By: Taurus

Taurus — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:32:36 +0000

To your first and second points: does a souce like Black's Law Dictionary seperate the difference between natural rights and just rights? Point #2 as stated lends the mind to deceive itself into thinking that one's rights supercede ALL others, to which I would reference "privelege". But I do understand all of your points.

By: Taurus

Taurus — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:23:22 +0000

How long can a post be?
Part 3?

Now here's a mind bender: How can the rock be considered the natural entity? How can the tree? The rock is simply a collection of soil compressed and hardened over time, and with erosion, will be again. The soil contained within it, is simply a collection of molecules, carbon based, which collectively create a specific form. Water is the example that nearly everyone knows. It is merely 2 parts Hydrogen (H) and one part Oxygen (O). What are the rights of hydrogen and oxygen, on their own? When they work collectively, they create water. What are the rights of water? It, like the rock (or soil), and carbon dioxide, is used in the nutrition of the tree for optimal growth. The tree then used these elements and filters or recreates, the input. The tree produces oxygen, and each leaf cycle is turned back in to soil. Very interesting correlation we have here! So after the life of the tree, the rights that it usurped for growth have supported and created new entities such as soil, which will have its own natural rights, only to be usurped again by another tree (presumably).

By: Taurus

Taurus — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:22:58 +0000

Part 2 (I suppose)

Viewing the nature of the relatoinship between the parent and child as a caretaker and a dependent might not be the best fit. As an example I would cite the relationship between the tree and the stone. The tree, for example, can be viewed as both the caretaker (providing protection from erosion to the rock) and a dependent (as it requires the nutrients from the rock to fully realize its potential).

By: Taurus

Taurus — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:22:08 +0000

I'm a tad late to the party, but, here is my comment on this scenario:
I think that rather than view this as an infringement of the natural right of the child, it is rather a teaching opportunity on behalf of the parent to instill the concepts of good stewardship and responsibility to a young mind that has not yet grasped said concepts. Would you agree?

By: @twitimbo

@twitimbo — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:55:20 +0000

I think you used a good metaphor about the rock and the tree.

By: Jackson Pemberton

Jackson Pemberton — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:34:58 +0000

Thanks for your comment. I suppose, at this point, we may be discussing what we individually think the meaning of the word "rights" should be. I'm afraid I have very little interest in trying to promote one definition over another. Perhaps I choose to ascribe rights to "lesser" objects so as to be able to construct what you call a metaphor. I personally prefer to ascribe rights to these things because it helps me recognize my responsibility as a steward over them. To say they don't have rights sort of disenfranchising them. I realize that some strange thinking is going on in some minds (nothing new there) that we should ascribe rights to pets, for example, that are virutally equal to humans. I think that is a silly concept with no observable basis anywhere. I also will confess that the phrase "animal rights" creates a dissonance in me, probably because the arguments often tendered in that context are based on "feel good" logic[?] rather than any well constructed reasoning process.

By: David Michael Myers

David Michael Myers — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:18:32 +0000

I appreaciate your efforts to explain natural rights, but I think you have some errors in your analogy.

FIRST: I think it is not appropriate to assign rights (natural or fiat) to inanimate objects. I think that rights apply only to HUMAN BEINGS. They do not apply to non-human animals, either.

SECOND: If you will look up right, rights, etc. in any dictionary (including Blacks Law dictionary) you will find that rights are CLAIMS that one person has over another that can beand are enforced by the state.

THIRD: I propose that you substitute the word, "faculty" (meaning: inherent capability, characteristic) for the word, "right" I think that your analogy will then be more nearly correct.

FOURTH: Faculties can be present in a person ALWAYS: but externally-applied forces can suppress an individual's ability to exercise those faculties.

By: @twitimbo

@twitimbo — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:57:21 +0000

Is a good example of natural rights trampling the rights of others is a parent telling their child to be quiet? It seems that both the parent and child have the ability to speak but the parent's natural right is supreme because of the inherent power relationship between caretaker (parent) and dependent (child).