7 votes

The Myth of "Rights"

This is my first post here and I don't even have a clue how this will go, but I keep ruminating on this same subject in my mind.

It is my belief, that while I am aware (a little) of the origins of "Natural Law" and a bit about John Locke, I can not for the life of me work out in any scenario a universe where "rights" actually exist. While I enjoy the rights the Founders set forth as natural to us as per the Constitution and the Declaration, I can not logically come to any conclusion that tells me that rights, necessarily, objectively, exist.

While it is my opinion that IF God exists, then, concepts such as rights may possibly exist, I can in no wise see clearly from the Scriptures which I believe in, any absolute declaration of anything, any human is "deserved". In a universe where A God, or some sort of Higher consciousness does not exist, a purely naturalistic framework, it seems utterly obvious and virtually absolute (if such things as absolutes could exist in regard to morals and concepts in naturalism) that rights could NOT exist.

I would just like to hear your thoughts on this, my community of fellow liberty believers. Thanks so much for any input you may supply.

Comment viewing options


Pretend you are a squirrel.

Whatever rights we are created with, they are given to all creatures. We were once as free as the squirrels. We wound up with governments, squirrels wound up with total anarchy - and somehow no mayhem...
Anything a squirrel can do, I can do, too, if I am just as brave as a squirrel and just do it.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:

I Like Your Thinking!

They are brave, but don't forget how hard they work. If humans were half as persistent...

Something Dr. Paul said there's only one right, to our freedom.

I tend to agree, I think all other "rights" emanate from our right to be left alone.

Freedom of choice, being un-coerced and un-forced is not a product of government. It exists without it and is something that government in almost every sphere infringes upon.

Even if it were the will of 99% of the people I don't want to have an elective dictatorship decide what I do. And I use the word dictatorship advisedly as after all no matter how its constituted, how representative it is, what does a government do but dictate? Governance is dictatorship.

Want I want is for each of us to be our own personal dictators and live free.

IMO, "rights"...

is really shorthand for commonsense rules that society agrees probably shouldn't be violated.

Life, privacy, arms, peaceful protesting, and property are the biggest "rights," IMO.

I don't play, I commission the league.

George Carlin does a good job explaining it


Unsuspecting, willing, blind, controllable herd
Pawns in a covert game conducted by hands we trust
Dominated, compliant and deceptable

-Meshuggah "Dancers To a Discordant System"


He's actually a very consistent philosopher. He's an absolute scumbag, but a good philosopher. His solution at the end is I can do anything I want, even kill people that don't agree with him and for that he gets a standing ovation. Ha. Well I think we can see why there is no such thing as HOPE either that the Liberty movement will succeed.

There is NO SUCH thing as a "RIGHT"

in Nature or by Supreme Authority.

How do I know this?

Because a Right must be guaranteed by force otherwise there is NO POINT in talking about it -- why would you talk about "rights" if none of them are guaranteed, guarded, enforced.

The second way I know this is true (that there are no rights) is because the most important rights "right to life" - "right to health" - "right to abundance" are never afforded (in the long-run) by Nature or by God.

If Nature and God cannot guarantee life, health, and abundance -- then who can? Certainly man has never enforced "rights" for all -- because in enforcing "rights" for the few they must suspend "rights" for the many and vice-versa.

The ability to "suspend rights" is proof that none exist in the first place -- a "right" is an absolutist statement, if not "perpetual" then why bother talking about it?

"Rights are the masturbatory dreams of teenagers and the fear-induced pipe dreams of the elderly" -- the rest of us just work here.


God a little gross there at the end, but I more or less agreed with you yesterday. Today I disagree partially. I think God guarantees these rights and will make good on justice, post judgment day. I know you won't buy that. But here on this earth, no, we're guaranteed nothing, because, we deserve nothing, we're fallen, flawed, evil in fact.

These other rights you speak of ..

These are not the rights Locke and others meant when they postulated natural rights.

There is not "right to health", "right to abundance" etc etc

The rights that are at the foundation of the Republic - and outlined / defended in the Bill of Rights - are much more basic than that.

It sounds like your concept of rights was drilled into you by modern culture, by statist doctrine, and this is what you are reacting against.

See my post above ("Born into this world ..") for a more complete explanation.

But no. You are not addressing the OP's query about rights. You are ranting about something else entirely. Honest.

I think you view the word from the perspective of the state.


I view the word as just the opposite - as a function of SELF defense. A Right possesses just claim to it's own self-defense against those (individuals, groups, states) who may attempt to claim it unjustly.

I would say we have one fundamental "Right" - the Right to live/be (and that entails freedom from coercion). The fact that one calls it a Right doesn't make any claim to some external protection.

You can explain natural law in terms of survival.

All life forms want to survive.

A life unit wants to survive as itself; then it wants to survive through procreation and caring for its offspring; then as part of a group or various groups; Man is sentient enough that most of us want to survive as a species (except for a small percentage of insane -- and I don't mean those in asylums; it is not difficult to see how a violation of these natual laws can be regarded as the fundamental insanity. Most of us here see that in an inordinate number of social institutions. It is pretty much our common denominator here.); the more thoughtful amongst us want survival of all life forms.

Natural Law would be those things that align most in the direction of surviving in these spheres and includes the idea of symbiotes to our survival in each sphere. As a a simple rule of thumb: does an action lead to better survival of more of the spheres or less? The converse can also be useful: Does an action lead to greater harm across more spheres or less?

You can extrapolate this into even more embracive spheres, but this is more than enough to explain most of what you are asking.

Reagrding "survival of the fittest". That is all well and godo in the animal kingdom. Any fool (except the insane as defined above) can see that man in peace and harmony with other men sruvives better and is happier.

I ponder this question

I ponder this question occasionally, too. I consider that the oceans and storms could care less whether anyone has rights, and demolishes everything without regard (obviously because they don't have the ability to think, but that is the natural world as well). I cannot yell to them 'I have rights, or to the animals 'do not eat me because I have rights'. If we lived in the woods, fighting against the elements/nature, rights would probably be the last thing I'd be thinking about. I believe in God, so to me, rights come from our conscience and reasoning and is kind of an invisible agreement between humankind. That's just how I feel now, and am not wording my thoughts properly here unfortunately, but always continue to think about such things.

I'm with you

I hear what you're saying and agree. Worded right or not, perhaps I'll make a post one day about the breakthrough I had on my understanding of rights. It would be lengthy and I doubt anyone would read it all, but the fact is I now fully believe in rights and believe they are tied into Holiness.

Deleted By User

Nothing to read here. Move on.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.


What do you mean by this? It seems to be here when I look at it.


I meant my message was deleted. Your thread is excellent. I hope that everyone looks at your discussion and votes it up. I voted up this thread.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.


Wow, thank you so much! It really turned out to be even better than I expected and I had a real breakthrough in my thought process about it. It seems clear to me that "rights" are tied to Holiness/righteousness. That God would of course have the right to do whatever he desires and that fallen humans would not. But in his law, he sets forth guidelines to help us realign with his self, his Holiness, his righteousness and gives us sort of rights by proxy until we're once again remade in his image, sinless and sanctified in his bosom. I'm very excited to ruminate on this idea and develop it into an understandable philosophy to give a basis for very real "rights" to all people. Thanks again for your kind words.

Locke said...

Locke said that holy texts or even direct divine revelation were insufficient to establish natural rights. And Locke was super religious.

He said that they must be recognizable to the human mind by observation of man in society. Those freedoms and protections that tend to lead to the happiness of man in society. Man seems happier when he can speak freely, or defend himself against aggressors, or be secure in his property, or worship freely etc. etc..

I think you misunderstand the concept of natural law and natural rights. It is not a religious doctrine. It is empirical.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

but it may be displeasing to

but it may be displeasing to hear other people speaking freely, and being displeased is a natural observation too, so I don't think that happiness is an adequate enough gauge to determine whether something is a right

Man in society...

man (plural, collective). The general happiness of mankind in their interactions with one another (society).

Where did you get that it meant a given person is unhappy or displeased with something? Everybody is always unhappy with something. It pleases some people to torture and kill other people but that completely misses the point. If certain people are thrilled to go around torturing, raping and killing it tends to make society unhappy. The pleasure the barbarians are experiencing is completely irrelevant.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


Well stated. But I guess this question of mine would take you one step deeper. Locke also said that anything that people observe that is not in line with the scriptures, or direct decree of God would not be valid, and that all such observations would have their test be the word of God, so I'm not sure you're statement here is completely accurate.

You quote him as saying, "Man seems happier when" and I say, why should man be happy? Why should I care if he is? Why not survival of the fittest? Why not own someone? Why not take what they have by force? What law, other than perhaps a contrived concept created by group consensus have I broken? Without an over arching moral law, we have nothing to compare our Constitutions and other documents to, to compare whether or not our judgements are correct.

Denise B's picture

Well said Baptist,

I like your post btw...playing devil's advocate is a great way to get people to come full circle with their reasoning :)

Well said.


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.

Awww... thanks


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


How would this play in? Just curious?

To my way of thinking

We want constitutional government because we have a Bill of Rights, and a constitutional government protects our Bill of Rights, enabling us to protect ourselves.

In the absolute sense, I

In the absolute sense, I guess you could say we have no rights.

But we have a Constitution. Both at the state and federal level, that guarantees us some rights. Those rights are in fact relatively limited in a very global view, but we have those rights, and we must fight for those rights.

I don't feel that our current rights neccessarily derive from religion. Only two of the 10 commandments are actually laws...and both of thoses concepts predate the Abrahamic religions.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:




Interesting! That is a definitive statement. We have no rights. But we like the rights people have pretended or agreed on for a long time. But to say we MUST fight for them? Why fight for them if they're not true or real? There might be better things to do. Why fight at all, why not hide? Just a little devils advocating here. Sorry. Which two of the are the only ones that are laws? I mean they all seem to be directives that are supposed to be followed.

We should fight for them,

We should fight for them, ultimately, because I think those things contribute to what I define as a happy and propsperous society. Unless you think those are bad rights to have; then we should not fight for them.

The two that are laws are thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill. Although the govenrment does allow killing in the pursuit of justice, so I guess technically it isn't followed. I would probably argue that perfury laws also honor thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

