[bergen]

>Marriage without children is an issue of morality, not rights. It was historically an issue of rights And children rights are a fairly new thing.

And no, you are wrong - your right not be attacked is based on morality, you say "attacking someone is wrong" - there is no law in nature preventing this.

But you made no point for your argument - just stepping through mine with comments.

[zaat]

> And no, you are wrong - your right not be attacked is based on morality, you say "attacking someone is wrong"

You are mixing morality with justice, which (in the modern world) is based on rights. "Attacking someone is wrong" is a moral statement, it puts the focus and the obligation of individuals to keep moral behavior. My right not to be attacked is not based on moral and not dependent on the morality or the beliefs of any other people, it is based on justice, a social contract that declare a set of a societal or universal rights granted to every individual.

[bergen]

And this societal rights are based on a shared understanding of what is moral and amoral, often dictated by works of religion or historically stemming from such.

[WalterBright]

> your right not be attacked is based on morality

The very first thing a group does when organized is to protect themselves from attack. They do this because it works. We've evolved that way, which makes it a law of nature for humans.

Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives.

But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how well societies work that enforce them, and how well they work when other systems of rights are tried. The evidence is pretty clear.

[bergen]

Of course you defend yourself and your kind from harm. But that is completely separate from the fact if it is allowed. There is no law in nature preventing this. Sometimes internal conflict is solved by violence and accepted.

Your first paragraph describes a group sharing a common will and organisation based on natural instinct (like a hive of bees), your second paragraph disputes this organisation as a group for humans, decide for one it can’t be both ways.

[WalterBright]

> decide for one it can’t be both ways

Oh, it can be both ways and is both ways. See my last sentence again, about the compelling evidence that humans thrive with their rights being protected, while a beehive thrives from being a perfect communist society.

Communism requires people to behave like bees in a beehive, and that will never work no matter how fervently one believes in communism and no matter how much coercion is used to force people to be good communists.

[bergen]

I really don't understand what you are on about. A beehive is the very definition of 100 percent following natural law. A beehive protects it's worker when a worker is attacked, following your line of argument then, this beehive is somehow capitalist and has rights? At the same time you're arguing that this swarm of animals doesn't follow the law of nature and therefore is communist which at best bizarre and at worst delusional.

Your mashing togehter things without any coherent explanation what you mean. Also you fail to provide a simple example beyond "the evidence is clear" you don't even say what evidence you're refering to.

[WalterBright]

Bees have followed a different evolutionary path than humans, and have reached a different local optima. Communism is "natural law" for bees.

Communism works for bees, it does not work for humans, because humans have not evolved into a beehive.

[Kbelicius]

> But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how well societies work that enforce them, and how well they work when other systems of rights are tried. The evidence is pretty clear.

We did not evolve with private property rights thus, by your reasoning, those are not "natural rights". I am at a loss in trying to understand what you are saying. It seem like you are trying to argue for capitalism but arguments that you give seem to favor socialism.

[zaat]

Natural and legal rights are well established terms that are being used, discussed and evaluated since ancient times. The term natural right precede our discovery of evolution by 2 millennia. Whether the right to property is natural right or not is a separate point and debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property

[sudosysgen]

The term natural right since ancient times was a religious construct that has little or nothing to do with the modern, post-Renaissance understanding of the term, so tracing a lineage here is a definitional error. In any case, what a natural right is isn't (and cannot be) a well established term, and indeed the rise in atheism is a fundamental threat to the doctrine, as most all ideas of natural law have to rely on a God to avoid the naturalistic fallacy.

[zaat]

God is of very little help (here), as pointed by Plato/Socrates in the Uthyphro dilemma. The naturalistic fallacy is not limited to natural rights, as Hume's is-ought is applicable to legal rights just the same - you can't logically deduce from the fact that there are laws that mandate rights a conclusion that one ought to abide by them.

Natural or universal rights does not require theism. Robert Nozick is famous proponent of the secular based position that property is a natural right.

[sudosysgen]

Natural rights do really require theism to be truly natural, ie, independent of morality and society. Theism avoids the is-ought problem by forgoing the ought, with theism natural law can simply be, and whether you decide you ought to abide them is no longer so important.

Nozick's position on the existence natural rights is simply not grounded. He appeals to intuition and to the reader's morality to appeal for their existence, but he doesn't (and cannot) actually deduce their existence once he forgoes theism. He makes a few appeals to Kant, but they obviously cannot be sufficient, Kant's conditions are merely necessary. I'm very confused by your reference to Nozick on a discussion about the grounding of natural rights when Nozick himself admits that he cannot justify them - he simply assumes Locke, which himself uses a theistic argument, in ASU. If you want, I can get the quote, but I don't have time to skim it until I'm home from work.

At the end of the day, secular natural rights is an intuitive and appealing but ungrounded position that cannot be logically justified, hence why it is threatened by theism. It is no wonder that positive rights and social right theory only really emerged after the Renaissance.

[WalterBright]

> We did not evolve with private property rights

Yeah, we did. The concept of "mine" appears very early in children.

Attempts to raise children from birth as good communists have never worked. Nobody has ever managed to indoctrinate people into communal behavior. Even the die hard communists in the USSR still participated in the black market - this was tolerated because even the elites used it.

It turns out that human nature is not very malleable.

[Kbelicius]

> Yeah, we did.

No we did not.

> The concept of "mine" appears very early in children.

The concept of "mine" also exists in socialism. How have you come to the conclusion that when a child says "mine" that it is referring to the capitalist notion of private property?

> Nobody has ever managed to indoctrinate people into communal behavior.

Are you denying the existence of families now? Humans evolved and spread in small familial groups which practiced communal behavior.

> Even the die hard communists in the USSR still participated in the black market - this was tolerated because even the elites used it.

What point are you trying to make whit this?

> It turns out that human nature is not very malleable.

If it wasn't malleable we wouldn't have capitalism as evidenced by early human history. While you at it why don't you tell us what human nature is, because there doesn't seem to be any consensus on it and you seem so confident in using it that you must have a ready definition of it.

[WalterBright]

> The concept of "mine" also exists in socialism.

Nope, even your shoes officially belong to the collective. I was told this by a former subject of the USSR.

> family

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, children are not fully formed humans, and have only a subset of adult rights. Families have evolved to deal with this issue. Extending the family to society does not work.

> why don't you tell us what human nature is

Two excellent books on the topic:

"The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0...

"Noble Savages" by Napoleon Chagnon https://www.amazon.com/Noble-Savages-Dangerous-Yanomamo-Anth...

I can sum it up with human nature is our evolved behavior, rather than learned behavior.

[sudosysgen]

> Communist rights, however, are not laws of nature because they do not work with humans. Humans are not beehives.

The laws of nature do not include any rights, unless there's some new physics I'm not aware of.

> But the most compelling argument for "natural rights" is observing how well societies work that enforce them, and how well they work when other systems of rights are tried. The evidence is pretty clear.

This is an argument from morality. You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good and then use that to justify the rights you advocate for.

You fundamentally cannot make an argument for what something should be like without resorting to morality. Without it, you can only make arguments on what things are.

[WalterBright]

> You start with the premise that a good societal outcome is morally good

I said how well societies work, and have also used words like "thrive" and "prosperous". We have evolved to be that way, it's our local optima just like beehives have evolved a different local optima.

> you can only make arguments on what things are.

And that's exactly what I did. Humans starve to death under communism - every time it has been tried. Nobody starves due to loose morals.