Tag Archives: natural rights

The Natural Rights Idiots Are Back

I’ve been able to successfully avoid the crazy libertarians for a while, but I stumbled back into the fray, with crazed fanatics demanding that “natural rights” are real and therefore, their imaginary rights are being infringed upon. You know, those rights they can’t actually show are real?  Yeah, those rights.

But where do they come from?  Well, like the religious, they have no answer, they just assume that they do.  That is exactly why I compare the libertarians to the religious.  They both take concepts that they have an emotional attachment to.  They both pretend that because they are attached to them, that makes them real.  They both follow the appeal to authority, either listening to an ancient book of mythology or old philosophers and politicians as their “justification” and because they now feel justified, they base their entire philosophical position on the “fact” that they were right all along.  Of course that ignores the fact that they have never validated their initial assumption in the first place but they don’t let that stop them.

That’s a problem for anyone who actually cares about logic and reason, which apparently, these idiots do not.  I’m not saying they can’t want whatever they want.  They can say they want a magical unicorn for all I care.  It’s when you start saying that you actually have a magical unicorn without being able to trot it out that I become concerned.  These fools are claiming, entirely without evidence, with just a bunch of hand-waving, that said natural rights actually exist.  That is not sufficient to show that they really do.

Of course they don’t really care.  They only care that it makes them feel good, just like the religious.  So long as it satisfies that emotional itch they have, they’ll grab on tight and never let go.  But I actually care if the things I believe are factually true, not just emotionally convenient.  The second  you open your mouth and start making claims, you’ve gone beyond the right to believe whatever load of bullshit you want in your own head to making claims that you rationally need to justify.  Again, to compare the libertarians to the religious, both sides have tried to say “oh, it’s just my belief!”  Nope, not since you’ve been stating it as fact it isn’t.  It’s now a claim and claims need to be supported.  Get to work.

It’s enough to make you beat your head on a wall.

Natural Rights Loons Drive Me Crazy

libertarians-are-crazyI guess it’s time for another one of those “why are these people so crazy and irrational” posts, owing the the fact that I’ve gotten myself involved, once again, in a debate with libertarians who cannot demonstrate that natural rights actually exist, they just keep repeating that they do over and over and over again.

I’ve said before that belief in natural rights is pretty much identical to religious faith, but it occurs to me that I don’t think I’ve ever run into anyone who believed in natural rights and wasn’t religious.  That’s not saying it can’t happen, I just can’t remember anyone I’ve debated that wasn’t also a theist and I think that’s important.  Of the three libertarians trying desperately to defend their blind faith in natural rights, all of them are fundamentalist Christians.

So anyhow, here’s one quote I wanted to pull to show how bat shit insane these people really are.:

you don’t seem to understand why I find natural rights to be so important. they are part of a philosophy that exists. trying to impose one concept of existence on “things” that are not defined that way is stupid. Does say “roman catholicism” exist? or angry atheism? sure they do-but not the same way say Iron ore or helium gas exists. same with Natural rights vs. a concrete block

Sure they do, but you can point to them in the real world, you can define what they mean and you can differentiate between the two.    I can define what constitutes Catholicism and produce evidence that such a thing actually exists in the real world.  I can define what atheism is and again, produce objective evidence for it’s existence.  Apparently, these libertarians can’t do that with natural rights.  They seem to think there’s a difference between legal rights and natural rights but they just can’t explain it.  They just have an emotional reaction to it.  They want natural rights to exist, the same way they want gods to exist.  These people are also ardent founding father worshippers.  One is saying that because Thomas Jefferson said something, it has to be true because… Thomas Jefferson.  It’s the same thing as claiming that the Bible has to be true because… the Bible.  And yes, they do use that argument, no matter how pathetic that it is.  Of course, I became a heretic when I said I didn’t care what Thomas Jefferson said, I only cared about demonstrable reality.  That didn’t go over well.

To be honest, I get tired of the dance for the same reason I tire of debating fundamentalist Christians.  They have no interest in listening and I have no interest in compromising.  They have no way of providing objective evidence or logical arguments to support their claims and I am not going to accept less.  If you can’t make your case intellectually, then you’ve lost.  It doesn’t stop these people from making the same claims that the religious do, often the exact same claims that the religious do, and ignoring any and all challenges because they are emotionally attached to their beliefs, but it isn’t a worthwhile argument either. What’s the point when “because!” is the only argument they can make?  It’s like debating with a 6-year old.  I really don’t see the point.

Opinions vs. Statements of Fact

fact opinionThe recent discussion on natural rights has resulted in yet another concept that libertarians and others of their ilk don’t seem to get.  See, there was one libertarian who was honest and admitted that “natural rights” was just his opinion.  Well no, it’s really not because for every single natural-rights advocate I’ve ever come across, it’s never stated as an opinion, it’s stated as a fact.  There is a difference.

An opinion would be “it is my opinion that everyone has these particular rights”.  A statement of fact is “everyone has these particular rights”.  In close to 100% of cases that I’ve encountered, natural-rights advocates have said the latter and I’m only hedging because I’ve never seen anyone say the first, I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt.  Even our libertarian who admits that it’s his opinion, stated it as a fact and when I pointed this out to him, he didn’t correct his error.

What he did do, though, is declare that it was a “core value” and therefore, not open to debate.  Wrong.  Everything is open to debate.  Absolutely everything, without exception.  If you cannot provide a compelling case for your arguments, no matter what you want to call your position, you lose.  He says, though, that no core values can be defended, that’s the nature of a core value.  I call bullshit.  All of my “core values” are defensible, I can argue why I think they are important, why they have an important impact on society and why they ought to be in place.  I just don’t claim that any of them are necessarily true or that everyone actually respects or recognizes them because clearly, they do not.

The natural-rights crowd doesn’t do that though.  They pretend, and most are actually convinced, that these things are actually so and in that, it places them in the same camp as the religious, who are similarly supremely convinced of their own delusions.  In fact, I’ve run into plenty of theists who claim that they don’t have to defend their “faith”, just because it’s faith.  No, the only way to avoid having the burden of proof for your views is to not talk about your views.  The moment you bring them up, you’re automatically on the hook for defending them. That’s the way rational debate works, you don’t get to just opt out.

Maybe if both the libertarians, at least those who are natural rights advocates, and the religious figured that out, we might have more productive debates.  Instead, we’re just left with the religiously and politically faithful demanding things they cannot show to be true and the rest of us are left shaking our heads.

The Religion of Natural Rights

Natural RightsI always find it amusing whenever a discussion about natural rights pops up because the typically libertarian adherents have to resort to quasi-religious means to have any hope whatsoever in justifying the concept.  Recently, yet another of these fun topics reared its ugly head and, like clockwork, the libertarians leapt into the fray, declaring, without evidence, that there are all kinds of universal rights that magically exist, even if they were totally incapable of proving any of it.

One guy, in fact, became the poster boy for libertarian natural rights stupidity when, not only could he not justify it in any way, he started getting mad.  Really mad.  But along the way, he hit the smorgasbord of theistic irrational responses, the things that we pretty much expect to see coming from the apologists because they really have nothing intelligent to say.

Some of those included:

  1. Declaring that everyone knows natural rights are real and anyone who says otherwise is just lying!  Clearly, natural rights are “self-evident” and anyone who doesn’t accept that is an idiot and a liar.
  2. Throwing the argument from authority into the mix, saying that the Founding Fathers believed in natural rights so clearly, they’re true.
  3. When that didn’t work, he went for full-tilt insults, calling people stupid for disagreeing with him, then “excusing” himself from the conversation because he had better things to do than talk to idiots.  Of course, he never really excused himself, he kept coming back again and again to repeat the same nonsense that had come before.

How often have we seen these things from the religious?  This guy was running with their playbook, whether he knows it or not.  And like the religious, his tactics aren’t impressing anyone. pretty much everyone else in the discussion is pointing out the same inherent flaws that I am and he’s getting madder and madder as time goes on. I’m waiting to see how long it takes for a blood vessel in his forehead to pop.

But that’s really the thing, even if you aren’t given to fits of rage and utter religious irrationality, libertarians and other “natural rights” advocates still have no good reason to believe that they’re actually true or meaningful.  It’s a blind faith in something they wish was true, yet cannot demonstrate is true.  This puts it in the same religious setting as a Christian declaring moral laws.  It came from an unquestionable authority!  You have to accept it!  It’s magically and automatically true!  Except in this case, that authority isn’t a god, it’s the deified demi-gods, the Founding Fathers.  Here’s a news flash for you, just because the Founding Fathers said something doesn’t make it true. Just because the patron philosophical saints, Locke, Hobbes and Paine said something, that doesn’t make it true.  Just  because you want to believe something, that doesn’t make it so either!  The only thing that makes a proposition true is being able to logically, rationally and objectively argue its merits and produce evidence to support your claims.

And libertarians can’t do that, any more than the religious can.  Intelligent, rational people would accept that their beliefs are unjustifiable and find a better path.  So what’s wrong with the libertarians?

Natural Rights Craziness

Yes, those crazy libertarians are back with a vengeance.  If you’ve never noticed, a lot of libertarians wear “natural rights” around on their sleeve like it’s a magic incantation.  Anything they have to justify… natural rights.  They can’t explain what they are, where they come from, what they mean or how they know any of this, it’s just true, damn it!  Stop asking so many questions!

The problem is, natural rights don’t exist.  There’s no justification for their assertion.  Nobody can explain where they come from, how they are derived or how libertarians magically came to know what these rights are, they just do.  In reality, they are simply inventions because libertarians want an unchangeable authority from which to pontificate their position. Continue reading Natural Rights Craziness