Do Natural Rights Exist?

[CornetJoyce]

"Men speak of natural rights, but I challenge anyone to show where in nature any rights existed"
- Calvin Coolidge, nomination acceptance speech

[Koba1917]

Rights are an invention of man. So saying Natural rights seems to be wrong. It should be we have "Natural Equality".

[AfricanAztecSamurai]

I was misunderstood,i didnt mean only the strong deserve a right to dignity,but that groups of whether it be ethnic,religious,economic,etc. run the risk of being exploited if not able to defend themselves.

[ChrisK]

Rights are an invention of man. So saying Natural rights seems to be wrong. It should be we have "Natural Equality".

How is that any different than natural rights?

[Koba1917]

Because "rights" have to do with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press which are inventions of mankind.

[ChrisK]

Because "rights" have to do with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press which are inventions of mankind.

And how is that different than "equality"?

[Koba1917]

Everyone is equal naturally. We are all born equal. What I'm saying is we are not born with "Freedom of speech". But we are born as equals which are made unequal by society.

[ChrisK]

How so? You are imposing something on humans that seems to be meaningless.

[AfricanAztecSamurai]

This is, unfortunately, pretty much true, though people can be peaceful and still have the ability to defend themselves.

I meant pacifist,not peaceful.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is, unfortunately, pretty much true, though people can be peaceful and still have the ability to defend themselves.

This is true under capitalism, and even more in pre-capitalist class societies.

But I would expect the world based on the "law of the jungle" to end with genuine communism.

[Koba1917]

How so? You are imposing something on humans that seems to be meaningless.

I'm simply saying that the "rights" we talk about aren't natural and are humanly made. So therefore "Natural rights" In the context of the rights we talk about I don't think makes sense.

[Exasperated_Youth]

This is true under capitalism, and even more in pre-capitalist class societies.

But I would expect the world based on the "law of the jungle" to end with genuine communism.

Really? I'd expect more of an an-cap outcome.

[Queercommie Girl]

Really? I'd expect more of an an-cap outcome.

What's "an-cap"? What do you mean exactly?

[Exasperated_Youth]

What's "an-cap"? What do you mean exactly?

Apologies, I thought the term was in common usage. Anarcho-capitalism.

Without some form of regulation, I don't think that people would gravitate towards communism, at least not in the modern world. Our society's values are all wrong and we'd have a minority of greedy individuals oppressing the rest.

[Queercommie Girl]

Apologies, I thought the term was in common usage. Anarcho-capitalism.

Without some form of regulation, I don't think that people would gravitate towards communism, at least not in the modern world. Our society's values are all wrong and we'd have a minority of greedy individuals oppressing the rest.

Yeah, but where did I say anything that is contradicting your basic points here?

I was referring to a post-revolutionary society, not society today.

[Exasperated_Youth]

Yeah, but where did I say anything that is contradicting your basic points here?

I was referring to a post-revolutionary society, not society today.

I disagree. Revolution doesn't do much in itself to change societal values, so to revert to the law of the jungle post-revolution would be to remove the state and allow capitalists free reign. At least the state, as it is, restricts the more blatantly exploitative actions of the private sector. It's a simple matter for the revolution to be betrayed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of transitional socialism/dictatorship of the proletariat? To allow time for an orchestrated shift in societal values and dismantlement of capitalist structures to create an environment conducive to communism. That's always been my take on it anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

I disagree. Revolution doesn't do much in itself to change societal values, so to revert to the law of the jungle post-revolution would be to remove the state and allow capitalists free reign. At least the state, as it is, restricts the more blatantly exploitative actions of the private sector. It's a simple matter for the revolution to be betrayed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of transitional socialism/dictatorship of the proletariat? To allow time for an orchestrated shift in societal values and dismantlement of capitalist structures to create an environment conducive to communism. That's always been my take on it anyway.

But you completely and utterly misunderstood me. I never advocated promoting the "law of the jungle" in a post-revolutionary society. Precisely the opposite, I said the goal of communism is to put an end to the state of the "law of the jungle" in society.

[Exasperated_Youth]

But you completely and utterly misunderstood me. I never advocated promoting the "law of the jungle" in a post-revolutionary society. Precisely the opposite, I said the goal of communism is to put an end to the state of the "law of the jungle" in society.

Ah yes, sincerest apologies. I read your post as meaning that the law of the jungle would lead to, and thus end with, communism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of transitional socialism/dictatorship of the proletariat? To allow time for an orchestrated shift in societal values and dismantlement of capitalist structures to create an environment conducive to communism. That's always been my take on it anyway.

The purpose of the proletarian political power is not ideological, it is simply the enforcement of the interests of the proletariat in a crisis in which such is essentially a matter of survival.

[Exasperated_Youth]

To return to the topic at hand, the idea of natural rights is wrong.