What are "God given rights" ?

Is a "right" real if it cannot be enforced?

There is a liberal You Tube show host named Sam Seder who has "debated" various libertarians many times over the years.  One thing they usually end up getting into is what gives someone ownership of property, say a house out in the country. Does mere occupancy make it your house, or the fact that you use the land for some productive purpose? Do you have a "God given " right to own that land?  Or is your ownership of that land contingent on you having a deed, which proves that the government in place recognizes your ownership.  Without that deed, isnt your ownership of the land in dispute, even if you see it as your "god given" right? 

Do you have a "God given " right to own that land?  Or is your ownership of that land contingent on you having a deed, which proves that the government in place recognizes your ownership.  Without that deed, isnt your ownership of the land in dispute, even if you see it as your "god given" right? 

Of course. And in the countryside as in the 'burbs' and beyond isn't ownership tied to house/land (annual) taxation? Does the government set the rate of said taxation? Does the government demand payments?

The idea of a ''God-given right'' is contrary to American traditions and law. 

Going back into British law, a ''right'' was given by the king. And anything that is given may be taken back.

American rights, since the very beginning, are ''inalienable''.

Our rights were not given by anyone. Not by the king, and not by God.

Our rights are inalienable and innate. They are part of what we are.

People have a "right" to liberty. But is not government required to ensure liberty? If someone comes along and makes you a prisoner or a slave, because they are stronger than you or have more firepower or whatever, what good is your inalienable right to freedom if someone or something , like law enforcement, cant help you secure that freedom ?  

IMNAAHO, ensuring our rights is the most important function of government.

Any of our rights can be taken away, and quite easily really. We have see nthat over and over. Now you may THINK you have certain rights, but if you are unable to act based on those rights, do you really have them? 

You're right, of course. That's why we must be constantly vigilant.

Currently, one of America's major parties is dedicated to eliminating the rights of its political adversaries.

You are correct. The Gop is definitely targeting the right to vote, and when that is gone so are all the rest. Lol they aren't even being subtle about the methods or the reasons.

Actually, you both are wrong. No one is trying to prevent people from voting.

You are totally right, by making a bigger and bigger pain in the ass to do something, you are totally not trying to discourage people from doing something. 

My, God, those buttercups need to learn how to suck it up.

Kinda like all the pussy cons whining about "cancel culture" need to suck up free market capitalism? 

Then "inalienable" is the wrong word or in-use here aspirationally. Because if such rights can be taken away or even given away then they are not properly yours or mine. Thus, the essential and continual striving and fighting for and over them.

Because if such rights can be taken away ...

The definition of ''inalienable''' is that they can not be taken away.

Let's not confuse a right ''not being respected'' with ''being taken away''.

Definition of Inalienable Rights

Noun

1. Rights that are not alienable

2. Rights that are not transferable or capable of being taken away or nullified .

Being disrespected by government agency carries no power to alienate my rights and privileges. Transferring my rights, suspending my rights, taking away my rights, or nullifying my rights does great harm.

I believe that you should have the right to do anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

I agree. ''Do as ye will, an ye do no harm.''

God given, or natural rights, are  inalienable.  Our country is explicitly  founded upon  that  principle.  It's a government's job to protect them. .Any government that usurps those rights is not legitimate and should be abolished by the people. 

God given, or natural rights, are  inalienable. 

That is fun to say, but absolutely not true. In fact, almost every right that we hold dear today has never been experienced by 99% of the people who have ever lived. So clearly they aren't THAT inalienable if they have only really been available for some people for a little over 200 out of our thousands of years long recorded history. 

Our country is explicitly  founded upon  that  principle. 

Woah woah woah, pump there breaks there hoss, women, blacks, natives, etc. may have a little something to say about that.

It's a government's job to protect them.

In theory yes, in practice it is more of a convenience thing.

Any government that usurps those rights is not legitimate and should be abolished by the people.

This I agree with in theory, but I don't think global anarchy is in anyone's best interests. 

That is fun to say, but absolutely not true. 

I'm not sure you are right. If one has God given rights, or natural rights if you prefer, then I don't think it is correct to say they are not inalienable, in most cases. I think most people recognize that slaves have the right to be free. So, what would be more correct to say? That a slave has lost his right to freedom or that a slave's right to freedom has been suppressed? 

Why, though, would most people say slaves have the right to be free and not a slave? Is it because we recognize instinctually that slavery is wrong, regardless of what one's government may have to say about it or is it wrong because we have a government that says it is? Is it wrong because we've been conditioned to believe it is? After all, slavery being wrong is a fairly recent development for the world, which once thought slavery was a part of the natural order. A freed slave once thought nothing of trying to acquire slaves of their own.  

It's interesting that JR happened to bring this issue up at this time as I have lately been considering the question of having rights simply by virtue of existing. Do we have them? Speaking for myself I've concluded that this is the wrong way to look at it. As a Christian I know people are created in God's image. But rather than giving me any sense of attached rights to that condition it instead creates in me a sense of obligation and responsibility to God and my fellow images of God (other people). That is, rather than concerning myself with my personal rights it seems more important to honor and serve others instead. That seems more clearly evident than trying to figure out what rights we are born with, if any.  

If one has God given rights, or natural rights if you prefer, then I don't think it is correct to say they are not inalienable, in most cases

If a right is given by a god, then how could a mere mortal stop it? The fact that rights can easily be denied, and historically every "right" we are talking about has been violently denied, means that our rights are not at all inalienable. 

That a slave has lost his right to freedom or that a slave's right to freedom has been suppressed? 

Again, if the right exists in your mind, but not in law or practice, and you are prevented from expressing it, do you really have it?

Why, though, would most people say slaves have the right to be free and not a slave?

I would say that most people don't say that. And again, if your choice, your freedom, is to die (possibly brutally) or live and work, is that really much of a choice? You are employing the mafia bargain "sure you COULD do that, but it would be a shame if something happened to your family..."

That is, rather than concerning myself with my personal rights it seems more important to honor and serve others instead. That seems more clearly evident than trying to figure out what rights we are born with, if any.  

Cool. I am more worried about my real world rights, those of my wife, and my daughters.

I dont think we have any "rights" that are not subject to interpretation and ultimately decision by the society at large. People will rightfully say they have an absolute right to defend themselves, but if someone punches you in the face and you beat him to death with a baseball bat you cant claim self defense. Society will through the judicial system say you went too far. Your right is limited by the common good. Just about everything that is a right has limitation. Maybe the only true natural right is the right to be left alone. If someone is a recluse or hermit they wont have interaction with anyone else. 

But rather than giving me any sense of attached rights to that condition it instead creates in me a sense of obligation and responsibility to God and my fellow images of God (other people).

Why is it that people in different cultures / societies / times have a different sense of what is right?

Basics codes of human behavior such as to not steal, to not lie, to not kill, to honor your parents and the god and to observe the  holy days were recorded in early dynastic Egypt.

I am not suggesting there is no overlap in perceived rights across cultures / societies / times.   Nor am I suggesting the absence of a common subset of what most everyone would consider 'obvious' rights.

If a right is given by a god, then how could a mere mortal stop it?

Well, I'm not sure we have "rights" as the word is usually used. It's why I haven't claimed we do have God given rights. As I said, I tend to think in terms of obligation and responsibility toward others. But if we do have rights given by God they would exist in the same manner that His laws and commandments exist, I would think. That is, His laws and commandments can be disobeyed but disobedience doesn't eliminate those laws or commandments. In the same way, if I do have God given rights those rights do not disappear simply because another doesn't recognize them. 

Again, if the right exists in your mind, but not in law or practice, and you are prevented from expressing it, do you really have it?

Do you think people have a right to freedom from slavery or is that just a societal construct? The answer to that should answer your question. 

I would say that most people don't say that.

So you would say that most people don't have a problem with slavery? 

And again, if your choice, your freedom, is to die (possibly brutally) or live and work, is that really much of a choice? You are employing the mafia bargain "sure you COULD do that, but it would be a shame if something happened to your family..."

You are confusing choice with rights. What you present as an example here is the method of denying the assumed right, not that the right doesn't exist. 

People will rightfully say they have an absolute right to defend themselves, but if someone punches you in the face and you beat him to death with a baseball bat you cant claim self defense.

devil is in the details as to if self defense can be claimed and upheld.

One person punches another in the face and walks away , and the second person pummels them to death , thats vengence/ murder , not self defense .

 first person punches the other in the face and continues the attack / assault and the second person gets their hands on a bat and beats them to death , that is self defense .

 same as if the person has a straight razor in their pocket , gets punched in the face and the guy doing the punching is walking away and the victim slashes the guys artery , thats vengence/ murder , but if the attack/ assault is continued and the victim slashes the guys artery , thats self defense.

when claiming self defense details matter , was the actions resulting in death done from a defensive position , or from an agressive position.

 once a defensive person changes to become the agressor , self defense becomes harder to prove.

I dont think we have any "rights" that are not subject to interpretation and ultimately decision by the society at large. People will rightfully say they have an absolute right to defend themselves, but if someone punches you in the face and you beat him to death with a baseball bat you cant claim self defense. Society will through the judicial system say you went too far.

I think the right to self defense is a good example of what might be a God given right. An individual has the right to self defense, regardless of what society or the government thinks. That said, both God and a sane society recognize the difference between self defense and murder. Both God and society recognize that just because someone punched you in the face is not a reason to kill the offender. 

Further, both God and society recognize that if all someone did was punched you in the face and that is all they did, no self defense is necessary on a physical level.  The matter should be handled legally. If someone punches you in the face and keeps on trying to harm you then self defense is justified. Even to the point of killing them if they won't stop attacking you and you believe your life is in danger. 

I think the right to self defense is a good example of what might be a God given right.

so someone that doesnt believe in god doesnt have that right? or is it a more intrinsict animal right of survival, the so called "natural right"?

 for me , there is usually a confusion of god given and natural ( willful maybe?),  natural "rights " are just there , even if there is no god there to grant them. 

so someone that doesnt believe in god doesnt have that right? or is it a more intrinsict animal right of survival, the so called "natural right"?  for me , there is usually a confusion of god given and natural ( willful maybe?),  natural "rights " are just there , even if there is no god there to grant them. 

Well, it seems to me that, without God, there are no natural rights. If there is no God, then all of existence is just an unplanned, unguided and purposeless chance happening, presumably resulting from some other unplanned, unguided and purposeless chance happening that proceeded it, all ruled by cause and effect, ad infinitum. Rights imply an imposed order to things. You can't have that "naturally." Concurrently, there would be no right or wrong, good or evil. Those also imply purpose. 

But if God exists, whether one believes that or not wouldn't change anything. If one is born with God given rights, they exist whether one believes in God or not. I suppose one might not believe in an Earth that is a globe, but that doesn't mean the Earth is not a globe or that the consequences of such doesn't apply to them. 

Why is it that people in different cultures / societies / times have a different sense of what is right?

I believe the answer to this goes back to the Tree of Good and Evil. I think most people believe that was about disobeying God's command not to eat of it. What it actually was about was a choice: to trust God in letting Him determine what was good and evil or deciding that we could make that determination without Him. We decided we could do it without Him. What resulted was human history. 

I see your point, but how does that relate to the question, "What are God Given Rights/"

I am not seeing how your answer addresses the question you quoted.    Seems to me that God did not place in every human being a consistent sense of right vs. wrong except for the most basic of notions such as 'do not kill' and even that varies considerably.

Seems to me that our mores and values are the result of evolution.   Our natural rights, therefore, are those which naturally evolved within the society / culture / time comprising our respective environments.    This nicely explains the differences and commonality.   Those moral values which served to sustain a society (enable its continued existence) would be most critical and common.

Rights imply an imposed order to things. You can't have that "naturally."

Well, evolution is certainly based on (what appears to the human eye ... an illusion) random events working within a complex dynamic environment from which select pockets of order emerge.   This is fundamentally true in terms of physics.   The universe continues to increase its entropy as a whole, but when we look closer the dynamics result in order (e.g. suns, planets, planetary features, life, society, buildings, etc.).   Order is in fact a natural consequence of the natural physics of our reality.   

Another way to say this is that over time forms will emerge, undergo change, and eventually decompose back into elements that are repurposed.   Think of the lifecycle of a star.   Think of the lifecycle of a life form.

If the right to defend yourself is God given, why is it that laws are needed to justify your actions (in some cases).  My point in seeding this article was that the term  "god given rights" has little meaning when compared with the rights that are allowed by the society, specifically the laws and the government created by that society.  I believe it was the political philosopher John Locke who devised the concept of "natural rights" and one of his famous examples was that of someone who sees some land, and puts up fences around a parcel of it, cuts down some trees , tills the soil and says that land belongs to him. According to Locke's concept of god given or natural rights , he is correct,  it is now his land. That sounds good as a political philosophy, but until a government entity gives him a record that shows it is his land and is recognized as such by the rest of society, he doesnt really "own" that land inside the fences anymore than he owns the land outside the fences. Someone with more guns and more men can come along, tear the fences down and kick the first settler off the land.  I believe this happened in the old west and has been the plot of more than one western movie. Only when law and order and society appeared were true property rights established. 

I think most people recognize that slaves have the right to be free. So, what would be more correct to say? That a slave has lost his right to freedom or that a slave's right to freedom has been suppressed? 

A slavery under the terms of law loses his or her right to freedom temporarily through suppression or if a life sentence is issued loses his or her right to freedom for life. Effectively, becoming a slave for life at that point!

Thirteenth Amendment

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Congress can strip (using the courts) one's inalienable freedom away. (Just look at the Black American former slaves of America). Slaves had no so-called "inalienable" or natural rights, for their Master held power to enforce and "convict" individually and collectively and punish them with servitude (for life) under the law of the United States.

That is, rather than concerning myself with my personal rights it seems more important to honor and serve others instead.

Humbly I ask: the rights and privileges of whom are you concerning yourself?

Please clarify as best you can, if you have concern and obligate yourself to be responsible to other people who do not in any way acknowledge or see themselves as resembling your concept of God.

Maybe the only true natural right is the right to be left alone.

You can not have a right to be alone, if the place you exist is "occupied" by the community-at-large.

Another thought: If citizens have "inalienable" rights (rights that can not be given or taken away) is it permissible, and why, to manipulate any one or all of them for and against the citizenry?

But if we do have [inalienable - that can not be taken away or given away] rights given by God they would exist in the same manner that His laws and commandments exist, I would think. That is, [God's] laws and commandments can be disobeyed but disobedience doesn't eliminate those laws or commandments.

Has God granted humanity any inalienable right which conflicts with God's superior authority? If so, how shall God judge humanity for acting according to natural law?

I dont think we have any "rights" that are not subject to interpretation and ultimately decision by the society at large.

I agree and mores the pity. 

People will rightfully say they have an absolute right to defend themselves, but if someone punches you in the face and you beat him to death with a baseball bat you cant claim self defense. Society will through the judicial system say you went too far. Your right is limited by the common good. Just about everything that is a right has limitation.

That's debatable. In all too many states, if you use a gun to kill someone who punches you in the face, it's perfectly legal. 

Maybe the only true natural right is the right to be left alone. If someone is a recluse or hermit they wont have interaction with anyone else. 

As long as you have enough free and clear land to live on and the someone doesn't take it through eminent domain or condemnation. 

Because of growth and development. Evolution. Circumstantial and consequential changes over periods of time.

For example, heterosexual majorities in the United States no longer fear homosexuality (generally), because they have undertaken to understand the conduct/behavior. As long as homosexuality was a larger mystery, heterosexuals felt safer keeping greater distance and avoidance of those individuals or groups perceived and labeled "Afflicted.' Individuals and groups apart from fear whom they could love as their 'own' children.

If the right to defend yourself is God given, why is it that laws are needed to justify your actions (in some cases).

I think that one is fairly simple to answer , at least it is for me .

personally i dont think anyone other than those that are religious would use "god given right ", at  least i wouldnt  and dont.

now do i think i have certain "natural rights " that follow with lockes ideas? yup  i do .

 now why would there be a need for laws justifying self defense? answer is simple to me , it differentiates from cold blooded murder , from the act of defending ones self from injury or death.

One act defined by society is criminal and punishable , the other is not according to society , but i do see that changing .

until a government entity gives him a record that shows it is his land and is recognized as such by the rest of society, he doesnt really "own" that land inside the fences anymore than he owns the land outside the fences. Someone with more guns and more men can come along, tear the fences down and kick the first settler off the land. 

Yes , i believe your talking about the cattle and range wars of territorial days , and it is just one more item that proves what thrawn said about use of force to guarantee ones own rights .

 and even back then , even if society recognized a deed granted by whatever form of government it could have been refuted and dismissed, and in some cases was. Now a days , not so much.

I believe this happened in the old west and has been the plot of more than one western movie. Only when law and order and society appeared were true property rights established. 

It certainly happened to Black slaves, Black landowners, Cliven Bundy and his militias which battled with government land managers, and still is on-going with some Native American lands (I think)

I am not seeing how your answer addresses the question you quoted.

I'll try to put it more plainly, then. 

Why is it that people in different cultures / societies / times have a different sense of what is right?

Because we aren't very good at determining what is right and what is wrong. 

''God'' has nothing to do with inalienable rights. By definition, inalienable rights are innate; not ''given'' by anyone.

Because we aren't very good at determining what is right and what is wrong. 

Or because there is no God-given sense and we are observing human beings reacting in different situations based on different natures which are ultimately a function of genetics and their current environment.

Under my hypothesis, variation in right vs. wrong would be expected.   Under yours, variation is unexpected (one would expect that God-given rights would be accompanied by God taking measures to ensure the understanding of right vs. wrong was in effect) and we must hypothesize some explanation.

Simply stated, human beings behave as if we do not have a consistent moral code but have evolved our own mores and values.

I dont think we have any "rights" that are not subject to interpretation and ultimately decision by the society at large.

I have innate rights. You have innate rights. Everyone has innate rights. Sometimes they collide. 

You and I and everyone are part of a society. A government is the means of expression of that society.

That's two levels at which our rights are interpreted, and enforced (or not): society and government.

And of course... Errare humanum est!

I am addressing a "fellow" Christian about something he wrote/contends. He associates himself with my frame of reference.

Perhaps, you could address Drakkonis about why he means in invoking the deity initially?

''Property'' is the object of debate since the Enlightenment.

Is property a right?  

Personally, I don't think so. All the usual rights have no impact on others. My freedom of religion does not impact your freedom of religion. But property is intended to impact others.

Property is just another contract.

Perhaps, you could address Drakkonis

Sorry. I gave up.

Or because...

I'm sorry, but if you're looking to begin a discussion about this I'm not interested. We already know each other's position and why we hold it, so what would be served? 

Agreed.

My point was that if we do not assume an entity that defines the universal rights, then the rights that we observe (with all their variations) makes sense.   The problem of rights is tied to the assumption that rights come from a non-human source and are consistently applied to all humans.

Is property a right?  

Personally, I don't think so. All the usual rights have no impact on others. My freedom of religion does not impact your freedom of religion. But property is intended to impact others.

Property is just another contract.

cows are property  so being my property i have the say on what is done with them that is earned by virture that i raised them fed them and protected them , there fore i and no one else has any right to the bounty of those labors i expended.

 you may wish to enter a contract to procure some of my cows after slaughter  I of course have the right to decline said contract at my whim for whatever reason i deem fit.

 now the simple majority of society can create laws that give them rights and send their agents to collect , but i ask , if there is nothing to collect , what will those agents walk away with? they will get nothing but spoiled and rancid leftovers , and society through its arrogance will be left hungry  wishing in one hand and crapping in another watching which fills first.

The problem of rights is tied to the assumption that rights come from a non-human source and are consistently applied to all humans.

I'm not certain what you are saying here. Are you referring to this? 

Under yours, variation is unexpected (one would expect that God-given rights would be accompanied by God taking measures to ensure the understanding of right vs. wrong was in effect) and we must hypothesize some explanation.

If so, you present a misunderstanding of my view. In my view variation is to be expected, not unexpected. That was the purpose of my reference to the Tree of Good and Evil. God wasn't setting some arbitrary rule but was making a statement that we aren't equipped to make determinations of what is good and what is evil on our own. We didn't believe Him, and thus, variations. 

While your point makes sense given its assumptions, mine does as well, given its assumptions. It seems to come down to the individual as to which they believe is the true reason. 

In my view variation is to be expected, not unexpected.

I understood your point.   Given your explanation, variation is to be expected.   My point is that if we start with uniformity as you suggest, we would naturally expect uniformity.   You have explained how we can go from a uniform state (your assumption) to  the non-uniform one (all the various and conflicting views on mores and values) that we observe.  

In my hypothesis there is no assumption of uniformity.   The mores and values simply evolve over time and, of course, the expectation here is that we would find quite a variety (albeit with some overlap).   Just as we observe.

While your point makes sense given its assumptions, mine does as well, given its assumptions. It seems to come down to the individual as to which they believe is the true reason. 

Yes, the assumptions are key here (and in most cases).   Typically it is best to limit assumptions to what is evidenced (or as close to that as possible).   That is, make as few, modest assumptions as possible.   I assume mores and values evolve like everything else.   You assume a sentient entity which creates a uniform morality that then devolves into what we observe.

You assume a sentient entity which creates a uniform morality that then devolves into what we observe.

Not to argue the point but I'm not certain morality, let alone a uniform one, existed in a recognizable form for humans at the time of Adam and Eve before the fall. How could it when, at the time, they had no concept of good and evil? Wouldn't morality only make sense once the concept of right and wrong were understood?

In that sense, I don't assume God creating a uniform morality from which we started and it isn't implied. Quite the opposite, really. Put another way, I don't think there was much of a moral code at all after the fall, let alone a uniform one. In disobeying concerning the fruit of the Tree, God seems to have let us go with our decision not to trust Him concerning what was right or wrong, morally, and let us attempt to figure it out on our own. As is recorded, we did so poorly and things became so bad that God ended up destroying nearly everything and started over. Further, from the time of the fall up until Moses, God doesn't seem to interfere much as far as establishing His morality. It seems to me as if God were giving us time to figure out we suck at determining what is moral beyond the most basic premises such as murder before moving on morality. 

Point is, neither of us are assuming uniformity. 

... I'm not certain morality, let alone a uniform one, existed in a recognizable form for humans at the time of Adam and Eve before the fall.

Okay.   That is not what I got from your opening comment.  

So you hold that objective morality came later?  Or is it yet to come?

Is property a right?   Personally, I don't think so.

Well the US Government and the state government of the state I live in believe in and uphold  private property rights , so that is all that matters to me!

So you hold that objective morality came later?  Or is it yet to come?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking or how it relates to the question "Why is it that people in different cultures / societies / times have a different sense of what is right?" Your answer is essentially that it is an evolving process and so variations are expected. My answer is essentially that we aren't designed to determine what is right or wrong, those things having already been determined by God, and therefore we suck at it, accounting for the variations. How does any potential answer to the question quoted above change these things? 

Then morality is determined by God but we are not smart enough to understand it.

Going back to my summary @3.1.37:

I assume mores and values evolve like everything else.   You assume a sentient entity which creates a uniform morality that then devolves into what we observe.

We both hold that human beings do not (in effect) operate off of an objective morality and thus mores and values vary among human beings.

You hold that the objective morality does exist (defined by God) but it has little effect since we cannot understand it (we suck at it).

I hold that while there might be an objective morality it looks to me as though the mores and values we observe simply evolved like all other factors.   I thus do not see a reason to presume that there are God-given rights (or even a god to give them).

Then morality is determined by God but we are not smart enough to understand it.

I think that oversimplifies it just a bit : )

I don't think it is a matter of being smart enough. It is more that we weren't designed to make such determinations on our own. One may as well say we aren't smart enough to fly without the aid of devices of any kind. Think about it, TiG. We're smart enough to figure out things like orbital mechanics, what causes plague, division by zero doesn't work and a whole host of other things, yet when it comes to morality we fail miserably. We do well enough to get by without killing each other most of the time but even so, there are a hundred episodes a day where we judge the actions of others and consider them lacking. Everyone wants to do the right thing, or at least not be wrong but we just can't seem to go very long without running into conflicts brought on by differing morals. As you say, follow the evidence and the evidence tells me we suck at morality. 

We both hold that human beings do not (in effect) operate off of an objective morality and thus mores and values vary among human beings.

I don't know that I can agree with this statement completely. I think, for instance, not murdering people is fairly objective and, for the most part, we do okay at not murdering in general. Rather, wouldn't it be more correct to say people don't agree whether or not morality is objective in the first place and, among those who do agree it exists, what constitutes objective morality? Isn't that why morals and values differ? 

I hold that while there might be an objective morality it looks to me as though the mores and values we observe simply evolved like all other factors.   I thus do not see a reason to presume that there are God-given rights (or even a god to give them).

Yes, I know. I'm not arguing against it because we've done that ad nauseum. 

OK

End of discussion

My freedom of religion does not impact your freedom of religion.

Until your religion decides that it can't get along with other religions, and takes the position that those who practice those other religions are infidels or blasphemers and simply have to go ("go" meaning anything from banished to put to death). 

Any right, whether labeled "natural" or "legal", requires one to accept the responsibility for not trampling that same right of others.  Otherwise "rights" are meaningless.  It is a social contract.  

The legal right to property (many may even call it a natural right) simply means that no one can take that which you have worked for or legally acquired, without due compensation.  It applies to any personal possession as well.  If that seems like a bad idea to you, how would you feel if a thief, or perhaps even the government, were to simply take your home, your car, your furniture your toothbrush and leave you naked in the gutter?  So, in that case would you feel that you had a right to that property or not?

I agree. My rights end where yours begin.

I chose religion as example because it is so often abused. If we accept the limits rule (my rights end where yours begin) then the abuse you describe in your first paragraph is impossible.

Since the abuse you describe most certainly does happen... we have proof that the (my rights end where yours begin) rule is not accepted by all.

Cliven Bundy

I will just skip the "paul harvey " rest of the story and cut to the chaste or end result.

the end of the story is that the elder Mr Bundy  proved and won in a court of law that he was within his rights to use the land in question , for the purpose he used it for , against said land managers statements , it took a few years to wind its way through the courts . 

 what he did effectively do is stop the said land agents from confiscating his property ( cattle), selling them on the market( the government was in no position to hold those cattle and be responsible for their feeding and care during the time it took to go to trial and be decided) , and after they lost their court case , have to repay him ( at their estimation of what the cattle would have been worth at the time of confiscation.) not what they were worth  or he could have got for them actually .

That little fact that Mr Bundy won his case against the government in court was not very well publicized in the media , but it did not go un noticed  and i notice it is often left out of the discussion.

Which court?

Which court?

npr

NPR is an acceptable source i take it.

 end result he won.

here is another

abcnews.go...

 ABCnews is reputable isnt it?

simply type in Cliven Bundy court case  and there are a few articles about it.

Thanks for the link. I'd forgotten the Trump pardon.

Did you also forget that the case was dismissed, or just choose to ignore that fact?

I'd forgotten the Trump pardon.

To be clear , the trump pardon involved 2 other ranchers in oregon, now that pardon did affect on whether or not federal prosecuters would go after bundy further or appeal the ruling in bundys case.

 bundy never got a pardon.

Did you also forget that the case was dismissed,

Dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct in LV Nevada , upheld in San Fran Cali in the next highest appeals court .

 Gee, the federal government wouldnt break the rules now would they? or want a second bite at the apple after losing?

 bundy never got a pardon.

Sounds like he did forget that, too!

Makes one wonder how egregious the violations were if even the 9th Circuit denied a retrial.

More importantly, the pardon signaled that Trump favors breaking the law in certain circumstances.

We saw that carried further on January Sixth.

Trump really didn't have anything to do with the Bundy case.

But it is admirable that you still want to drag Trump into conversation he does not have anything to do with!

the hole in that is the fact there was no guarantee trump would have granted a pardon, it never came up and nor did it have to since the feds tainted and lost the case all on their lonesome.

 As i found out being a parent , the story changes and facts omitted depending on who is telling the story and the story they wish to tell and be believed .

Makes one wonder how egregious the violations were if even the 9th Circuit denied a retrial.

when it was going on , i was more curious as to why it was let to have happen since the 90s , well over a decade before any action was taken.

 Now those that like maps , can look at public land maps of whats out west , and they will see that federal and state lands boundries make the map look somewhat like a checkerboard alternating fed and state lands .

 one could have a state grazing permit  with that land being right next to federal land , and even temp fences are frowned on because of wild life corridors , so usually the state and feds work in tandem when it comes to grazing permits, but not always.

Now it has been my experience , cows are dumb and their habits are predictable. they eat , sleep, crap and make little cows  and play follow the leader and continue in that cycle , moving when what they eat becomes scarce. where they are . just the nature of cows.

.

Any right, whether labeled "natural" or "legal", requires one to accept the responsibility for not trampling that same right of others.  Otherwise "rights" are meaningless.  It is a social contract.  

Amen, Brother!

And the social contract can be violated by anyone with the wherewithal to stand against the culture. 

It is a social contract.  

just out of curiosity ( i know that killed the cat) what is entailed in this social contract to others thinking?

The social contract (it is not really a contract, per se) is the unwritten agreement assumed to be held between the government or society that one calls their own and the collected individuals governed or led by the same.

Every contract is seen as win-win by parties not forced into agreement, and it is assumed that if one is born into a society, that they owe their allegiance to that gov't or society.

The first party,  I will call it the government, gets peaceful "dominion" over the second party, the governed, in return for some sort of guarantee of relative peace in which to go about the business of their daily lives. 

Where exactly one goes from there is up to the "contract" and how strong the ties are that bind the individual and the group to the "Government" of the society. 

But I think that you knew that already..... So could you further define your Question?

just out of curiosity ( i know that killed the cat) what is entailed in this social contract to others thinking?

Well, in my mind, as a human being I should have the right to life, liberty, and let's say my property, but only to the extent that I do not deny or restrict those same rights of other human beings. These ideas spring from the concept of individualism and the consideration of individual's place/freedom in a larger society to best serve the needs of both the individual and the society as a whole.

If I take someone's life, if I kidnap or enslave someone or otherwise unduly restrict their freedoms, or if I steal another's property without fair compensation then I have broken the universal code that affords all humans those inalienable rights. In that case I have not held up my side of the social contract that makes "rights" the glue that holds a society together, and I therefore have no rights either.

Without some recognition of basic human rights on an individual level and an honest effort to apply them universally, a society cannot function, and individuals cannot flourish, regardless of the socio-economic "ism" or structure that might be put in place.   

Oh sorry Mark - Just realized that you had directed your question at Thomas, who had addressed an earlier comment I had made.  Hope you don't mind that I took a stab at it.

but only to the extent that I do not deny or restrict those same rights of other human beings

I think that is the gist of it right there.

It kinda begins and ends with crossing lines.

My rights end where yours begin.

No, our rights begin when our lives as human beings begin.  Your rights do not end where mine begin.  Your rights end when you decide to strip me of mine.

Semantics.

I'm not interested.

Semantics. I'm not interested.

More precise language, which often makes a difference.  So I am interested.

no problem it was really thrown out there even though it showed up under Thomas  for anyone to answer, the more answers the better actually it opens up the field of discussion and kind of lets people see either where they stand or what is being thought.

So could you further define your Question?

so far i dont see anything wrong with yours or free wills start at defining a social contract.

 maybe it would be better if i say what the social contract i live by is . 

taking what both of you have already stated about certain guarantees provided by societies agent ( the government ) peace , the upholding and recognizing property rights and the such .

 part of the give on my part is allowing the agent to collect taxes to help pay for the things the agent will be providing . be it income . property or a sales tax to help pay things along to keep society moving forward.

 keep in mind this is my version of the social contract i live by .

 another thing on MY part is to live within the laws of society as written and agreed on .

One can go on for a very long time doing this and live comfortably

 now here is where i will digress from some as to the social contract.

 and where what you said thomas,

the social contract can be violated by anyone with the wherewithal to stand against the culture. 

there came a time for me i got tired of what some call the "rat race", i looked at what i had earned , crunched some numbers , and told myself i dont need more .

This caused a problem , and an instant audit by the government when it came income tax time since my income dropped dramatically from previous years , and i started unloading investments or simply did not reinvest what had by them become a pretty hefty principle amount . keep in mind these financial holdings had been getting added to over 35-40 years .

 best piece of financial advise i got when I was young regarding investing was to decide what amount i was going to initially invest, and that became the principle what that principle earned in returns is what paid the gains taxes , what was left over , was for me to decide what to do , spend it , or add it to the principle to be reinvested again , thus earning more each time it was turned or rolled over, The only real rule about the principle was to NEVER touch or use the principle for living expenses., of course i was also working so i didnt have to count on what that working money earned to live off of .

all of a sudden that cash flow to society , went from the likes of a faucet , to a dribble , which caused the audit . and i will say that was fun . 

Currently the only income taxes i pay , are on any income i make working through the year, IF i choose to work , i have my savings set up in a no interest account ( banks and financial instituions hate those) so there are no unearned income gains to claim or declare, reason banks hate those types of accounts is they are responsible for the funds deposited , but since the institution pays no interest , they also can not use those funds to make loans or do their own investing with them , if they pay interest , they can. Currently i have no investments so no unearned dividends to declare 

SO i have now what some would call lazy money that is out of the reach of society to use all the while filling my part of the "social contract " i described . But i already know there are some that think because i have more i can afford to pay more.

My understanding of the social contract is that it is NOT perpetual, and one can disengage to others protestation, when the trade off becomes too one sided 

No law says one must have an income to be taxed 

 no law says one must invest what some call expendable funds ( usually meaning more than one has to use to live off).

 No law says one has to keep their money in a bank under the banks terms  and for the banks use.

 and as long as one obeys the laws and pays the agreed on taxes whatever they are based on , the basic social contract is still being followed.

God given, or natural rights, are  inalienable. 

Which is BS! It's a nice thing to believe and even sounds poetic. But it's basically the same as saying people should have certain rights that they were otherwise denied. 

Our country is explicitly  founded upon  that  principle. 

Yes, because we saw how oppressive foreign governments can be in regards to individual rights.

It's a government's job to protect them.

This is true. By the same token, and historically speaking, the government can and did dictate what rights the citizenry were allowed. Our system allows the citizenry to have some say in such matters.

.Any government that usurps those rights is not legitimate and should be abolished by the people. 

At least not without just cause or rationale. There are limits to rights.

By the same token, and historically speaking, the government can and did dictate what rights the citizenry were allowed. Our system allows the citizenry to have some say in such matters.

Actually by way of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights the citizens dictated the rights to which they felt they were entitled and then limited the government from abridging those rights.  As you pointed out, all aimed at avoiding what the early citizens had seen in history as oppressive governments that indeed “dictated what rights the citizens were allowed”.

By design our system was to allow the citizens to have ALL the say when it comes to rights that the government cannot abridge.  Yet at the same time we citizens must agree to abide by laws, enforced by our democratic representative form of government in support of and in defense of these same rights.  Such rights can be abridged by other individuals as easily as they can be by the government, hence a reasonable rule of law to help enforce that social contract.

In any case, we must remain vigilant and accept the responsibility as heirs to these rights to ensure that neither individuals nor the government trample, diminish, abridge, or strip from us those rights for which many before us have fought and died.  Mob rule should be no more welcome in our society than individual criminals or authoritarian dictators, if we wish to preserve our individual rights.   The best defense for individual rights is the responsible use of those rights by the individual, and for us as individuals to hold ourselves and each other accountable for maintaining them.  The more we leave that responsibility to others, or to “the government”, the more rights will slip between our fingers like sand over time.

Rights may be God-given or inalienable. Not both.

A right that is ''given'' may be taken back by the giver. An inalienable right is... inalienable.

What Are "God Given Rights" ?

Whatever the people in charge at that moment decide they are. 

Since God never makes public announcements, ''God-given'' translates as ''defined by clergy''... who are usually self- designated.

In other words, ''God-given rights'' may be cancelled at any time by religious personnel, perhaps of a different congregation.

'God' given rights vary per culture / society because that is what defines and grants said rights.

I think you just said it best and hit the nail on the head.

The term "god given rights" or natural rights strongly suggests they apply to all people everywhere, at any historical time period. 

I think Thrawn has expressed it well. If one cannot experience certain rights because there is no government willing or able to protect those rights, do they really exist? 

Looks like Thrawn and I made the exact same point.

The term "god given rights" or natural rights strongly suggests they apply to all people everywhere, at any historical time period. 

Yes,  thus 'God given rights' is a fantasy.

Well, great minds and all.

No one wants to admit or even believe that society (through its instrument government)  is the source of rights (they would prefer rights be referred to as natural rights or God given rights)  but I would like someone to tell me what enforceable rights anyone has without society or government. 

... I would like someone to tell me what enforceable rights anyone has without society or government. 

None.

... I would like someone to tell me what enforceable rights anyone has without society or government. 

None.

I disagree .

 without government , or even a loose society , the individual would only have those so called "rights " that they themselves could defend and exersize. for themselves.

in other words it would be a giant step backwards in human history to the days that living in caves were the norm. and constantly be in and at battle with others that were doing the same thing.

Sounds like you are saying that the only enforceable rights sans society are those that the individual can personally enforce on their own (individually).

Well, sure if you want to nit pick, but is that what we are talking about?

Seems to me that you agree with what I wrote yet choose to disagree due to a minor technicality.

I think he is basically agreeing. 

Seems that way to me too.   Ultimately, rights are a function of society.    And the rights vary per society.

That is the way of it. The best we can hope is that either a) we are in charge, or b) those who are value your life a bit more than being a servant. 

And the rights vary per society.

as they say the devil is in the details .

 say i live in the middle of no where( funny that i do actually), someone moves in 3 miles from me , do they have the right to demand eggs from my chickens to feed themselves ? or meat from a beef or hog i slaughter and preserve ? Logic dictates they have the right to ask if i would be willing to part with any of it even at a cost , but if the answer is no , what rights do they have then?

 society would dictate that if i have extra , that i should give it . reality says , they are not my problem if they do not make plans on how to sustain themselves .

and please leave off the judeo - christian concept of "charity " since i am neither.

lets say i participate in "society" minimally ,  i purchase what i need from society to become self sufficient  to a point  i am neither a burden nor a drain on societies resources ,

example , I decide i want electricity , but do not want a power line strung out for 50 miles( at my cost) to get it , i purchase my own set up to generate electricity for my needs on site , does the person moving in 3 miles from me have any right to tap into my generation source against my will? or do they have to do as i have and either have to decide to string a line at their cost or get a set up of their own?

 would the new neighbor have the right to tap into my culinary water well ? or would they have to get their own at their own cost?

 technicalities can come back and bite people in the ass when one starts thinking about what they might have a right too when they dont..

Just to be clear, I have presumed that we are all talking about living in societies.   Living in anarchy would, of course, mean that everyone must defend themselves.   So putting that extreme situation aside, do you agree that within a society, the rights of an individual are those granted by that society and that those rights vary per society?

Living in anarchy would, of course, mean that everyone must defend themselves.   So putting that extreme situation aside, do you agree that within a society, the rights of an individual are those granted by that society and that those rights vary per society?

todays society is actually everyone must defend themselves , and they do so against those that society deems criminal , do we live in anarchy today because of the criminal element that says they have a right to do as they wish and take from those that have  for their own gratification against the others will ?

By society do you mean government ? and can the government ( society) dictate what others can do or what they HAVE to do for the security of society as a whole over the interests of the individual?

What if an individual decides to leave societies jurisdiction ( or pretense of it) , and exist as they choose ? which is slightly what i am doing and have been doing for a decade, it works for me .

 what it appears your asking is  do societal rights trump or take precedence over individual natural rights .  and my answer is the devil will always be and always have been in the technical details. each situation is different , just as each social gathering of ideas  is different . it basically is a case by case basis.

What it appears your asking is  do societal rights trump or take precedence over individual natural rights .  and my answer is the devil will always be and always have been in the technical details. each situation is different , just as each social gathering of ideas  is different . it basically is a case by case basis.

Hi Mark, I see what you are doing and trying to do in this discussion fair enough. But you have a problem. You are immersed in a 'pool' of surrounding policies, rules, regulations, laws, and "protectors." Think of it as an egg: Where are you existing as a part of the whole? 

That you are able to relatively live free and undisturbed is because you 'transit' with a narrow or barely registering footprint. However, when you 'vibrate' —policies, rules, regulations, laws, and protectors attend you, yes? For example, I think you have to enter a store for "supplies"—the store's owner applies all that is according with the law to you the instance you step onto the grounds. Now then, how does that work with government which owns the lands up to and touching. . .

"the middle of nowheres"?

You have a perception of living "free" and that is not a bad thing. But, the moment a government "revenuer" that is, assessor, analyzer, agent, officer, official, planner, or inspector - to name a few types - steps on you "settlement"  you are answerable to the United States of America government. "The egg" has discovered you!

Your rights and privileges become discuss-able, debatable, interpret-able, diminish-able, and/or removable, as deemed appropriate.

Dont think i ever said anything about not following societies rules when i choose to be in societies company .

of course , anyone has to follow the rules be it driving down the highway , following traffic laws ( no running red lights and such), and of course when i go for "supplies " i have to follow whatever rules a shopkeeper sets for their establishment . old saying , when in rome , do as the romans fits.

 this of course also means that any and all taxes prescribed applies to any purchase outside that which i can create myself , sales tax , gas tax , annual county property tax . that rendering to caesar that which is caesars thing.

 now lets look at a few of your claims , am i subject to US federal law ? of course i am that is of course the highest jurisdiction there is ,  but as long as i have been following federal law the chances of a federal agent or officer visiting me are next to nill unless there is a report i have somehow broken some federal law .

 there really are no federal assessors because currently there is no federal tax on land for the individual , that is left to the  state. there is also no taxes on livestock until or unless they are sold  any assesment of a property is legal by the state and there should never be any problem with that . actually i am more liable to be visited by a state or county  agent than a federal one  and i have no problems with them visiting as long as they properly identify themselves as such.( legal requirement they must follow)

 the so called "egg" already knows i exist, and i know that , there just isnt too much they can really do as long as i pay my taxes and dont break the established laws .

rights and privileges .....made me kind of made me chuckle a little bit 

Everyone has the right to speak their mind , that freedom of speech thing in the first amendment

if they get someone to listen to them thats a privilege , what the person speaking doesnt have is the right to make anyone listen or keep them from just walking away or even agreeing with them.

when speaking of those 2 things it is best to understand what they both actually are. some people actually believe some rights are privileges , and some privileges are rights , see that confused all the time.

I would like someone to tell me what enforceable rights anyone has without society or government. 

Only those that can be enforced via the fist. If you think it is your right to eat the other guy's food, and you whip his ass and eat, well then I guess it is. Of course, you get old and slow enough, then you lose that right, along with the right to your own food. 

Yes... and that's important.

Without effective government, dedicated to defending everyone's rights, those ''rights'' are meaningless. Without effective government, dedicated to defending everyone's rights, ''might makes right''.

I would argue that "might makes right" is ALWAYS the underlying rule. We just have to hope that "might" serves our best interests, and if it doesn't that our "might" is enough to win out. Ultimately every law is enforced with the fist, or gun barrel, take your pick. 

Chicken or egg?

The phrase, "God-given (inalienable) rights" is a term of art that the writer used.  He is indicating that, for instance, freedom, while it can be constrained, should not be wholly removed from a fellow traveler on the Earth in his or her lifetime. Of course, in practice, people abuse themselves of other people rights indefinitely and innumerably. Subsequently, the writer coining the phrase did so aspirationally.  With a hope that where ever and for how long it could take root and water itself it would survive in the hearts and mind of decent, sincere, people.

God-given (inalienable) rights" is a term of art that the writer used.

My guess is that our fundies - that's HALF of the population - take ''God-given'' literally. The Old White Guy with the big bushy beard handed down the graven stone tablets.

And what God gave, He can take away.

If you don't often chat with God, don't worry about it. The fundies will be happy to tell you what God thinks.

I don't think that's a good way to go.

The Old White Guy with the big bushy beard handed down the graven stone tablets.

This is the error privilege can make. One concocts a thing. . .sits down to 'eat it' and it consumes him or her. For example, "the Book" clearly says God is Spirit. Subsequently, the familiar image some humans like to cast as God as a human father feature is "shedded" crossing God's threshold.

Note: It is one reason I do not write of God using a personal pronoun. Funny story, recently I heard the Governor of California refer to God (in a passing conversation) as "She." Well, it's human politics alone. God has no sexual: interests, drives, expressions, or advantages where humans are concerned. According to the Book.

Two points:

First, there are millions of Americans who think of God as the Old White Guy with the bushy beard. He is very clearly NOT Black, so abuse of Blacks cannot be offensive to Him...

...and so on...

Second, I agree with the Governor. When speaking of God, I alternate between masculine and feminine. I use She as often as He. I don't use It because God is not a ''thing''.

Okay. . . .

GOD gave me feet to exercise my right to walk away from what I don't like. 

lol

Nah, evolution and a brain did.

Yeah I forgot GOD gave me those too.

Thanks 

Lol, you wanna go down that route? 

Lol, you wanna go down that route? 

probably not if you put it that way. 

Smart man

Thanks that I already knew.

From time to time, don't get too cocky, we have all seen MAGA.

don't get too cocky,

Lol, you wanna go down that route?

Nuff said ? 

Oh you didn't get the joke? Eh guess it wasn't that subtle unless you kinda knew where I was going with MAGA being homosexual. 

But as far as arrogance, my wife has said I will die of an OD so let's do it. 

But as far as arrogance, my wife has said I will die of an OD so let's do it.

LOL It seems we both kinda missed the meanings some.

Looking back real quick and what we were saying .. when you said " Lol, you wanna go down that route? "   

Yeah I did kinda think that was arrogant so I kinda responded in kind. "probably not if you put it that way."

When you said " From time to time, don't get too cocky, we have all seen MAGA."  I responded to the don't get too cocky part ..  using your our words back at you. To subtlety make a point. 

As far as arrogance... mine just kinda falls outta my face sometimes. lol 

so let's do it.

If you are talkin that we should talk "religion" I may be happy to sometime IF we both drop the arrogance BS. and discuss it respectfully.

LOL It seems we both kinda missed the meanings some.

Well when you get two self-absorbed assholes together, what is to be expected? lol

I am more than okay talking about religion, but forgive me if I delve into my usual swearing, its just me. 

And of course, you must have an open mind. If you are just gonna give me scriptures and tell me I am damned, well then thanks, if I can handle Iraq in the summer, then hell won't be so bad. 

For real though, an honest conversation or else I will just treat you like MAGA.

For real though, an honest conversation

Agreed, And as for me throwing scriptures ain't gonna happen. As for a few cuss words, sometimes they help get a point across. lol 

Oh come on.  The question of rights isn't that difficult to answer.  Don't be distracted by the mention of God; that's just a placeholder for an unknown source or cause.  

We know rights are associated with life.  Inanimate star stuff doesn't have rights.  A mixture of CHNOPS in a container doesn't have rights.  Dead things (including dead people) do not have rights.  So the idea of inalienable rights arose from observation of life.

Go back to fundamentals and follow the evidence.  What do all living things have in common?

that's just a placeholder for an unknown source or cause.  

No, that's just an attempt to add dramatic effect or weight to a declaration.

We know rights are associated with life.

Do slaves have rights? Clearly "life" alone is not a determinant of rights. It's the society that makes that determination.

No, that's just an attempt to add dramatic effect or weight to a declaration.

Sorta like how 'science' is used to establish authority?  Changing the question to what are 'science given' rights doesn't change the nature of the question.  And I doubt invoking the authority of science would alter the answer.  Can the authority of God accomplish what the authority of science cannot?

Do slaves have rights? Clearly "life" alone is not a determinant of rights. It's the society that makes that determination.

Of course slaves have rights.  Believe it or not, there were even laws protecting the rights of slaves.  But humans, being what they are, changed the laws to take away rights.  

No, life is not the sole determinant of rights.  But rights begin with life because only life has rights.  So answering the question 'what are God given rights' can only accomplished by observing life and not by observing God; just as did the natural philosophers.

Surely science has progressed sufficiently to identity what all living things have in common.

Gordy did not mention science.

Sorta like how 'science' is used to establish authority? 

What does science have to do with anything? If you're going to try to veer the discussion into another of your anti-science rants, then that's getting off topic!

Of course slaves have rights.  Believe it or not, there were even laws protecting the rights of slaves. 

That depends on the society. Slaves by definition do not enjoy the same rights or freedoms as everyone else.

But humans, being what they are, changed the laws to take away rights.  

That's kind of the point here: rights are subject to the dictates of society.

Gordy did not mention science.

That's correct.  I transposed God and science to make the point that the mention of God is irrelevant to the nature of the question.

What are rights?  And if humans are the source of rights then what's the beef about slavery, genocide, or anything else humans choose to do to each other?  We could simply hold a democratic vote and execute whoever we don't like.

The question about God given rights is not trivial.  But, IMO, the question isn't that difficult to answer, either.  And the answer doesn't require invoking the authority of God or science.

I transposed God and science to make the point that the mention of God is irrelevant to the nature of the question.

Science is irrelevant to it too.

What are rights? 

What society (or its leaders) say it is.

And if humans are the source of rights then what's the beef about slavery, genocide, or anything else humans choose to do to each other? 

Some have no problem with that. History alone proves that. But some do take issue and fight for change.

We could simply hold a democratic vote and execute whoever we don't like.

We are not a pure democracy. So that idea is irrelevant.

My answers did not invoke God or science.    I spoke of society / culture / time.

Our natural rights are those which naturally evolved within the society / culture / time comprising our respective environments.   

Science is irrelevant to it too.

That is correct.  And that was the point I made.

What society (or its leaders) say it is.

Then what's the complaint about slavery?  What's the complaint about segregation?  Both were legal.  Society decided.

Some have no problem with that. History alone proves that. But some do take issue and fight for change.

Pop goes the weasel.  Toss more sand and dance away from the question.

How does coercing society become a defense of rights?

We are not a pure democracy. So that idea is irrelevant.

Democracy does not need to be pure to arrive at a decision that society accepts as legal.  Are laws a viable substitute for rights?  And what are the justifications for laws that eliminate rights?  Slavery was legal so is owning slaves a right?

And that was the point I made.

That was supposed to be a point? No one mentioned anything about science. You did. You "point," whatever it is, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Both were legal.  Society decided.

Until society decided otherwise.

Pop goes the weasel.  Toss more sand and dance away from the question.

I answered your question. You just don't seem to like the answer. Well that's too bad! My statement is factual.

How does coercing society become a defense of rights?

Review the Civil War for that answer.

Democracy does not need to be pure to arrive at a decision that society accepts as legal.  Are laws a viable substitute for rights?  And what are the justifications for laws that eliminate rights?  Slavery was legal so is owning slaves a right?

Laws affirm and define rights and their boundaries. There is a process for passing, changing, or striking down laws. 

Our natural rights are those which naturally evolved within the society / culture / time comprising our respective environments.   

But doesn't that imply that rights existed before humans?  

In 14 billions years inanimate matter has not evolved natural rights.  A container of CHNOPS isn't a living thing which indicates life is more than a collection of inanimate matter undergoing chemical processes.  So, natural rights are associated with life, itself, and not with the inanimate material substances that life occupies.

What are the qualities and characteristics of life that are shared by all living things?  Every life is separate, independent, and unique.  Two organisms may be identical in all respects but each organism possesses a separate, independent, and unique life.  The separate, independent, and unique life within each organism will motivate the organism to interact with its environment to survive.  The separate, independent and unique life within each organism will motivate the organism to perpetuate its kind.

Even this simplistic examination begins identifying rudimentary natural rights.  The right to life, the right to act to survive, and the right to provide for a posterity are natural rights.

hat was supposed to be a point? No one mentioned anything about science. You did. You "point," whatever it is, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So, you are arguing about a pointless point?

But doesn't that imply that rights existed before humans?  

How so?   Society and culture (stratified over the ages) are based on human beings working together.

In 14 billions years inanimate matter has not evolved natural rights. 

Why are you entertaining thought about the rights of inanimate matter?   Irrelevant.

The right to life, the right to act to survive, and the right to provide for a posterity are natural rights.

When a single-cell organism consumes another, has it violated the rights of its prey?   Where did the right to life come from?   Seems to me that life violates the right-to-life in order for life to exist.  

You're the one making and arguing something pointless. Not me.

Why are you entertaining thought about the rights of inanimate matter?   Irrelevant.

It's necessary to find the limits of the question.  The rights of inanimate matter is irrelevant to the question because inanimate matter does not have rights.

When a single-cell organism consumes another, has it violated the rights of its prey?   Where did the right to life come from?   Seems to me that life violates the right-to-life in order for life to exist.  

You're missing something.

Is there a natural right to eat?  Yes.  Is there a natural right to avoid being eaten?  Yes.

Natural rights are accompanied by a natural conflict between rights.  That's because each life is separate, independent, and unique.  Societies have not evolved rights; societies have evolved ways to deal with conflicts between natural rights.

The rights of inanimate matter is irrelevant to the question because inanimate matter does not have rights.

Yeah, irrelevant. 

Societies have not evolved rights; societies have evolved ways to deal with conflicts between natural rights.

Okay, so basically you are just typing irrelevant distinctions and pointless questions.  

You are not being serious, we are done.

Okay, so basically you are just typing irrelevant distinctions and pointless questions.   You are not being serious, we are done.

Showing weakness in the points you've made isn't pointless.  As I've shown, societies have evolved ways to resolve conflicts between natural rights.  One civilizing means of resolving those conflicts was to make a distinction between freedoms and natural rights.

Governments can grant or curtail freedoms.  But when government uses its authority and power over freedoms to encroach upon natural rights then the government loses legitimacy and those who are governed revolt.

Showing weakness in the points you've made ...

You have done no such thing.  In fact your latest comment simply makes statements as if arguing a point when in reality no such point was made.   It is a pretense on your part to put forth a comment that looks as though you are engaging in debate by making statements that are generally true as if in rebuttal.

For example, nowhere do I suggest that governments cannot grant or curtail freedoms.    That, in fact, has been my point.   Rights come from society / culture / times.

Take your intellectual dishonesty and associated games elsewhere.

For example, nowhere do I suggest that governments cannot grant or curtail freedoms.    That, in fact, has been my point.   Rights come from society / culture / times.

No, you didn't suggest that governments cannot grant or curtail freedoms.  But you are discussing natural rights as though they are freedoms.  My comment is addressing that misconception concerning rights.  

A government granting or curtailing a freedom is not granting or curtailing a natural right.  Granting or curtailing a freedom that encroaches upon rights is not a legitimate function of government.  

As an example, granting the freedom to seek an abortion does not make abortion a right.

But you are discussing natural rights as though they are freedoms. 

You are spinning.

A government granting or curtailing a freedom is not granting or curtailing a natural right. 

Yeah governments cannot grant natural rights; only rights.   There is no authoritative statement of natural rights so they do not, in effect, actually exist.   The only rights that actually exist are those granted by society.

As an example, granting the freedom to seek an abortion does not make abortion a right.

Of course not.   The freedom to 'seek' is not the freedom to 'get'.   But if a society makes abortion legal then it has granted the right to abortion.   Rights are constructs of society.  

The most obvious presumed natural right is the right to exist.   But to exist, life must consume other life.   The right to exist cannot be conditional (only given to predator and denied to prey).

Yeah governments cannot grant natural rights; only rights.   There is no authoritative statement of natural rights so they do not, in effect, actually exist.   The only rights that actually exist are those granted by society.

My contention is that natural rights do exist.  Natural rights are a component of life, itself.  Rights are a feature of nature and not a construct of society.  

Rights are governed by natural laws pertaining to life just as physics is governed by natural laws pertaining to inanimate matter.

The most obvious presumed natural right is the right to exist.   But to exist, life must consume other life.   The right to exist cannot be conditional (only given to predator and denied to prey).

Death refutes existence as a natural right.  Each life is separate, independent, and unique.  At the most basic level, every living thing has a right to act to sustain and protect its own life.  Both predator and prey consume living things; both are acting according to their inherent natural rights granted by life.

The inherent natural rights granted by life entails conflict between individuals.  That's a key component of natural selection.  Evolution depends, to a significant extent, upon conflict between individual exercise of natural rights.  And every living thing has a right to utilize whatever evolution has established to exercise their fundamental natural rights.  The rights of living things evolve as the living things evolve.

At the most basic level, every living thing has a right to act to sustain and protect its own life.

The prey's right to life then is violated by the predator's right to act to sustain.   If rights can be freely violated how are they rights?   By what authority do you deem something to be a right rather than simply an action within the capabilities of a life form?

To have a right there must be a granting authority.   Said granting authority also enforces the right (otherwise the 'right' is just bullshit).   If there is no granting authority and thus no enforcement, there are no rights.

The prey's right to life then is violated by the predator's right to act to sustain.   If rights can be freely violated how are they rights?   By what authority do you deem something to be a right rather than simply an action within the capabilities of a life form?

That is correct, exercise of rights establishes unavoidable conflict. 

Every living thing has a natural right to utilize whatever capabilities nature has provided.  Isn't that how evolution works?

To have a right there must be a granting authority.   Said granting authority also enforces the right (otherwise the 'right' is just bullshit).   If there is no granting authority and thus no enforcement, there are no rights.

Nature.  Evolution.  Chemistry of CHNOPS.  God.  Flying spaghetti monster.  Take your pick.  The point is that rights are not created or granted by humans.  Rights are an inherent feature of life.

Humans have utilized moral authorities of religion and government to resolve unavoidable conflicts resulting from exercise of rights.  But those moral authorities grant or curtail freedom to exercise rights.  Moral authorities are not the source of rights.  

Every living thing has a natural right to utilize whatever capabilities nature has provided. 

Every living things has a means to utilize its capabilities.   Rights are something entirely different.

Take your pick. 

No.  There is no picking.   Natural rights comes from a granting authority.  

The point is that rights are not created or granted by humans.  Rights are an inherent feature of life.

Of course they are.  The right to own property is clearly granted by society.  One of thousands of examples.   'Natural' rights would be granted by the authority of nature.  So name that authority and show me where said authority has provided the list of natural rights it has granted.

Of course they are.  The right to own property is clearly granted by society.  One of thousands of examples.   'Natural' rights would be granted by the authority of nature.  So name that authority and show me where said authority has provided the list of natural rights it has granted.

The authority that granted natural rights is the same sort of authority that granted gravity.  Natural rights are an inherent feature of life just as gravity is an inherent feature of inanimate matter.

First cause is the authority that granted everything in the universe, including life.  Whatever you choose to believe about first cause is a personal choice.  And you have a natural right to make that choice and believe whatever you wish to believe.  That is an evolved feature of being human.

The authority that granted natural rights is the same sort of authority that granted gravity. 

What then are these granted natural rights?   Where do you go to get the definitive list from the granter so that we actually know?   Without such a list there is no point talking about natural rights because the concept is entirely abstract.

What then are these granted natural rights?   Where do you go to get the definitive list from the granter so that we actually know?   Without such a list there is no point talking about natural rights because the concept is entirely abstract.

Understanding any feature of the universe requires observation of nature.  Rights are an inherent feature of life; therefore, understanding and enumerating rights would require observation of life and, in particular, humans.

Systematic observations of humans are among the oldest written texts.  Systematic observation of living things began before history was recorded and those observations were passed down through time as oral history and became part of the written record.  

Rights are an inherent feature of life

That is simply a claim.   What authority states there are any natural rights as a result of merely existing?   What are these natural rights and by what authority?

Systematic observations of humans are among the oldest written texts.  ...

Another one of those obvious statements designed to appear like a rebuttal but having no bearing on what I wrote.

What do all living things have in common?

Certain death.

Yep.

Certain death.

The dead do not have rights.

It is illegal to desecrate a grave.   To wit, the dead have the right to be left alone.

The dead also have the right to have their wills faithfully executed.

Certain death.

And taxes.

So let's understand the context of these words. 

When Jefferson wrote them (as part of a Declaration Committee, of Adams, Franklin, Sherman, Livingston), it was meant as nothing more than telling England what our intent was. So when people say that it is the foundation of our country, it was and it wasn't, since it was not the purpose of the Declaration. 

And when you talk about slavery, there was a slavery clause that was removed, because the southern states said that they wouldn't sign it, and Hancock had determined that the vote for independence had to be unanimous. 

So how can one have a serious discussion about god-given rights, when one of the most fundamental as just a human right, was denied to a group of people that were considered property?

Property? Ah, you mean women (too)!

And when you talk about slavery, there was a slavery clause that was removed, because the southern states said that they wouldn't sign it, and Hancock had determined that the vote for independence had to be unanimous. 

If the vote wasn't unanimous then those Colonies/States wouldn't be part of the USA and there was no way we could have won the war against England without them. If they had held a hard line on abolishing Slavery the Southern Colonies would have fought on England's side because they would have thought that if we won against England we would invade the Southern Colonies next and take over by force. I'm sure many people regretted the exclusion of the Slavery Clause at the time but since Slavery was legal in English Colonies there was nothing to lose by kicking the can down the road. Those slaves were going to stay enslaved whether we liked it or not, the only difference being if we could get the Southern Colonies to sign the Declaration of Independence and join the War for Independence on our side.

Ye Olde Eight-Hundred Pound Gorilla in a Living Room.

Good article John.  While the Bill of Rights is not as you say "God given rights", they were meant to support/defend what the founders thought to be inalienable or natural rights from the new government.  Do you believe that the "right to vote" is an inalienable right, for example?    It is actually a "legal right" not a "natural right" as it is merely a privilege afforded to us as citizens of this country and participants in the type of society we have created.

Interesting read HERE :

The Founders knew full well that while we are born with rights, we need some protection in order to have the freedom to exercise those rights. This principle helps explain the difference between “ natural rights ” and “legal rights.” While natural rights are innately part of being human, and exist prior to any culture or society, legal rights are those that are acknowledged and protected by a given government. So, in the Founders’ understanding, natural rights would include the right to life itself, the right to think for oneself, the right to self-defense, and the right to keep what one has worked honestly for, among others. Legal rights would include the right to vote, the specific methods by which fair trials are conducted, and copyrights and patents–all of which might be defined and protected in different ways in different countries or states, based on their particular customs and beliefs.

On the surface of the question itself, we have a "God-given right" to breathe and stop breathing and procreate if we choose. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe it's simply my opinion, but to me, everything else is designated by law of man.

I think the phrase "God Given Rights" pertains to the basic rights most people believe they should have whether or not they actually have those rights legally. Nothing is guaranteed and what should be isn't always what you get, no matter what the Law says at 2am on a country road when Sheriff Huge Ballbuster pulls you over the only rights you get in that moment are the ones he's willing to respect. The foundation of God Given Rights is Equality, how can a right be God Given if everyone isn't deserving of that right. If We believe We deserve a Right strongly enough to give it to people who will use it in ways we disagree with (like the freedom of Speech) then surely it meets the standard of a God Given Right. The Second Amendment is a God Given Right, it is the one right that gives you the means to protect all your other God Given Rights against people who would Rob, Maim, Kill, or Disenfranchise you or your family.

The Second Amendment is a God Given Right, it is the one right that gives you the means to protect all your other God Given Rights against people who would Rob, Maim, Kill, or Disenfranchise you or your family.

Basically, you are saying self-defense is a "god-given" right. Gun rights, technically, are about possession. Gun usage can be and often is done offensively, as we all have experienced by sight or sound.

All the rights you list there are laws written by man. To me, "God-given rights" have nothing at all to do with man-made laws. I'm going by the most literal definition; that's not to say that those basic "God-given rights" don't extend into what became man-made laws... using your example of the 2nd amendment, which is a little too narrow for what my thoughts are; that we have the right to defend ourselves and our own.

It certainly makes sense that God-given rights would be exclusively those rights granted to creations by the creator.  

The hard part is determining what these rights are.   For example, the right to life is not so clear.   Life must consume other life to exist.   Life, thus, must kill other life to live.   This would mean that the right to life is also the right to take life but that then denies the right to life of the prey.

Seems to me we can easily get into a real conundrum trying to figure out what rights are 'God-given' unless God were to explicitly state these rights.

Seems to me we can easily get into a real conundrum trying to figure out what rights are 'God-given' unless God were to explicitly state these rights.

Agreed. That's why I merely stated my opinion of what I thought it means.

Agreed.

That is also why my position on these matters is that we simply do not know.    So people should not be claiming 'God-given' rights when there is no way to produce the definitive list of said rights.   Our rights —those that are truly in effect— come from our respective societies.  

All the rights you list there are laws written by man. To me, "God-given rights" have nothing at all to do with man-made laws. I'm going by the most literal definition; that's not to say that those basic "God-given rights" don't extend into what became man-made laws..

The Belief that a Right is God Given has nothing to do with the law, the Law is written later or not to protect those rights but the Belief is Humans were born with these rights and have always had them even when the King of England violated them with his Rule of Law. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it should be pretty clear that they didn't think that God had just endowed us with these rights the week before they believed they had always existed. Whether or not the law of the land supports and defends these Rights the Belief is you still have them. Do you think a King, Cop, Or anyone else has the Right (not the power but the Right) to deprive you of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If you believe that you have basic human rights that supersede the laws of man then you believe in God Given Rights. A King may legally have the ability to rape you then kill you with an axe just because he feels like it but he doesn't have the Right to do it. What is a Right well it's pretty clear they call them Rights because they are founded in "What is Right" Vs. "What is Wrong" so Basic Rights would be Adverse to Basic Wrongs such as Slavery.

the right to life 

The conundrum you cite is real... and important... but it has nothing to do with God.

The question you raise is ''To whom do rights apply?''

We presume that they apply to ''people'' but we rarely bother to define ''people''. Humans are people... but not all humans. we withdraw rights from some people: convicts, ''wrong race'', children, foreigners, ...

Are only homo sapiens people? What about the higher animals? What about aliens in spaceships?

What about zygotes?

What about women carrying zygotes?

The Belief that a Right is God Given has nothing to do with the law, the Law is written latter or not to protect those rights but the Belief is Humans were born with these rights and have always had then even when the King of England violated them with his Rule of Law.

Saying that people are born with rights is just speculation and a philosophical argument with no practical application in itself. 

If a baby is born and immediately dropped off on a remote island where there are no other human beings , what rights does he have?  Was he born with the right to not be eaten buy a tiger ?   Rights are solely related to what happens within a society and being born into a society is not an innate result of being born. 

The conundrum you cite is real... and important... but it has nothing to do with God.

It does have something to do with God when we are trying to identify the actual definitive list of 'God-given' rights.   If there is a sentient creator, then it seems to me the only way to know which rights were given to us by our creator is to have said creator communicate them to us.

Short of this definitive list, we will simply debate in ignorance.

... which is why the Fathers invented ''inalienable''.

God hasn't made a public appearance for a very long time. We're better off not trying to imagine what She thinks.

If a baby is born and immediately dropped off on a remote island where there are no other human beings , what rights does he have?  Was he born with the right to not be eaten buy a tiger ?

He has Basic "God Given" Human Rights. Having Rights does not guarantee they will not be Violated even the Law can't do that, the Law can only try to prevent the violation and remedy the violation if it occurs." If you believe that Slave Owners didn't have the Right to Own their Slaves even though the Law said it was Legal then You Believe in a Basic God Given Right to Freedom and Self Determination. The God Given doesn't even need to be Religious it just means "Bestowed by Powers beyond Mankind"

My point is that rights are not applicable outside of organized human societies with government and laws. Pure libertarianism or anarchism cannot contain people with "rights". 

If you and I were the only two people on earth would you have a "right" to not have me hit you on the head with a rock, or vice versa? 

Of course not. There is no society there. 

I don't see how rights can be inborn, they dont occur until there is a society with rules and regulations. 

God hasn't made a public appearance for a very long time. We're better off not trying to imagine what She thinks.

Exactly.   If there are 'God-given' rights we do not know what they are so, in effect, they do not exist.

 A Basic Right is based on what is basically Right. I don't need a Greater Society to tell me what is right or wrong and even if they're all running around Bopping each other in the head with rocks it still doesn't give them the right to Bop me

Rights are solely related to what happens within a society and being born into a society is not an innate result of being born. 

well if a child has no rights , someone better do a lot of rethinking. many people that have killed a pregnat female have been charged with not just one count of murder  , but with two based on the UN born childs right to live/ life since the mother decided against an abortion and wanted to carry to term. but thats societies call , isnt it?

Pure libertarianism or anarchism cannot contain people with "rights". 

The only way there could ever be pure libertarianism or anarchism is on an Island with one single resident.

WTF does that have to do with the topic at hand?

might want to ask john 

 if a child has no rights , then it is safe to think that an unborn child has no rights , yet a person can be charged with a seperate homocide if the unborn dies  based on the unborn childs right to life.

 and if a person can be charged that way , and the unborn has a right to life , once it is born , it does not lose that right . since the right was established while it was unborn.

 like i said , thats societies call , not mine.

The only way there could ever be pure libertarianism or anarchism is on an Island with one single resident.

I disagree

I don't see how rights can be inborn, they dont occur until there is a society with rules and regulations. 

We have a quandary.

If rights are obtained from someone, then that someone can take them back. Not good!

So we don't want our rights to be obtained from someone. Then where do they come from?

Shazzaaam! They are innate!

You are perfectly right that our rights are meaningless without a society/government to enforce them. 

It's a bit of a fiction... but the alternative is that someone gave me my rights... and can take them back. I don't like that idea...

... and we need to agree on "universal", or "innate" rights. Intrinsic to any person. Inalienable.

Seems to me the only right that can be agreed upon are those listed by the granting authority.   If the granting authority is a society then the rights granted by that society are typically codified in law.   If the granting authority is not available for comment, the associated rights do not, in effect, exist.

Universal rights are abstract because there is no known authority for such rights and those who think they know the authority cannot communicate with said authority to get a list of these universal rights.   Thus universal rights are, in effect, purely an abstract notion of no real consequence.

Inalienable rights could be inferred, I suppose, by identifying rights that cannot be taken from an individual by human law.   The inalienable rights are, however, a function of the authority that could prevent them by law.   So to define inalienable rights one must first focus on a particular authority and the rights that are not precluded by that authority.   Universal inalienable rights can, at best, be approximated by identifying rights that no authority on the planet can take away.   But that is simply an approximation.

if a child has no rights , then it is safe to think that an unborn child has no rights ,

A child has rights. The unborn are not yet children and do not have rights.

yet a person can be charged with a seperate homocide if the unborn dies  based on the unborn childs right to life.

Also wrong! Fetal homicide laws (which are irrational) are based on inflicted harm to the pregnant woman, thereby forcibly removing her rights. The application of such laws is also based on the stage of gestation, the circumstances surrounding the harm inflicted, and whether a prosecutor pursues such a charge.

 and if a person can be charged that way , and the unborn has a right to life , once it is born , it does not lose that right . since the right was established while it was unborn.

Still incorrect. See previous statement. Also, if the unborn had such rights, abortion would not be permissible.

 like i said , thats societies call , not mine.

True. But fetal homicide laws are bad calls.

the granting authority

There is no ''granting authority''. Rights are innate, inalienable.

There is an enforcing authority, without which our rights have no force. 

The difference is important. A granting authority can withdraw the grant. We suddenly do not have that right. There can be no recourse.

An enforcing authority may cease enforcing... but that is ceasing to accomplish its function. That's grounds for recourse.

How can there be an enforcing authority without a granting authority?

If we go to the grandest level (back to God) then, as the creator, God is the granting authority of inalienable rights (rights that cannot be granted by and thus revoked by human beings).   This requires making God the exception to the meaning of that word.   And if the creator is not the exception in 'inalienable' then there can be no inalienable rights — they are impossible.

No ''granting authority'' is needed for our rights.

No granting authority is needed for our hands or feet, or ears or eyes...

Our body parts are part of who and what we are. Our rights, also. We do not receive our rights from anyone. They are innate, like our eyes and ears.

It is because our rights are innate that they are inalienable.

that is just a perspective. it may or may not be reality. rights are meaningless until the time comes to have them applied and that cannot be done outside of a society's jurisdiction because they cannot be enforced or denied outside a society's jurisdiction. 

Interesting definition for the concept of a 'right'.   Our capabilities or even the means of our capabilities are considered rights?

Because we can walk we have the 'right' to walk.

Because we can see we have the 'right' to observe.

Because we can think we have the 'right' to create weapons of mass destruction.

...

fetal homicide laws are bad calls.

bad calls or not , they are still enforced and called that way .

 again not my call.

That's not at all what I meant... although it might be worth thinking about.

A right is part of what constitutes a person. Just as a growing child more fully develops physical characteristics that were innate, they also progressively acquire society/government's enforcement of rights that are also innate.

Most of our rights are useless for a child, but that doesn't mean the child doesn't have them. Freedom of religion? Of speech? To bear arms? The child has those rights, but doesn't know what to do with them.

We, as a society/government, have agreed to progressively enforce more and more of a child's rights as they grow.

You are no longer talking about inalienable rights then.   I understand you hold that innate results in inalienable but I do not see how.

Mention society / government and you are entirely outside the bounds of inalienable rights.

they are still enforced and called that way .

Not in regards to "fetal rights."

I understand you hold that innate results in inalienable but I do not see how.

Rights are an integral part of what it is to be a person. Excised of rights, the individual is no longer fully a ''person''. (Perhaps 3/5 of a person?)

Excised of a frontal cortex, the individual is no longer fully a ''person''.

(Here we tangent the ''what is a 'person'?'' portion of any standardized abortion ''debate''.)

Mention society / government and you are entirely outside the bounds of inalienable rights.

How so?

I hace rights, but others may not respect them. You have rights but others may not respect them. By joining together, in a society/government, we have a better chance of having our rights respected.

(Perhaps 3/5 of a person?)

A reference to the lack of rights denied by a particular society-time.   The rights of slaves (or lack thereof) were human-imposed.   Alternatively, the rights of non-slaves were human-granted.

I hace rights, but others may not respect them. You have rights but others may not respect them. By joining together, in a society/government, we have a better chance of having our rights respected.

What are these rights that exist outside of society?   How can 'rights' (not capabilities) exist if they are not granted/enforced by an authority?

Did hunter/gatherers have the right to keep and consume their food?   When another tribe stole their food, was it their right to do so or did they violate the rights of the victims?   Who granted these rights?

What are these rights that exist outside of society?

Live, breathe, die.

How can 'rights' (not capabilities) exist if they are not granted/enforced by an authority?

I see no problem at all. Lots of ideas exist independent of their realization. 

The rights of slaves (or lack thereof) were human-imposed.  

A big part of the abolitionist debate was about whether Blacks were (fully) people. (I assume you know the Cornerstone Speech.) The abolitionists said Blacks were people and therefore should be free. The slavery side said Blacks were inferior to Whites, and that it was the natural order for them to be slaves.

Rights are indissociable from personhood.

Did hunter/gatherers have the right to keep and consume their food?

 I have no idea... and unless we know a context much more fully than we know that one, I doubt that any valid inference may be drawn from it.

I see no problem at all.

What distinguishes an innate right from a capability?   We know what distinguishes a societal right (the granting / enforcement of same by society).   Outside of society, where only innate rights might exist, it would seem from your comments that an individual has the right to do as they please.

What distinguishes an innate right from a capability?

They are two different things. I'm capable of lots of deeds that I do not have the right to do.

Outside of society, where only innate rights might exist, it would seem that anything a person can do is their right.

That's a good reason for agreeing on a list...

They are two different things. I'm capable of lots of deeds that I do not have the right to do.

Correct, they are two different things.   I have attempted to get a clear answer on what distinguishes a right.   This is going in circles so I am getting off the ride.

An unborn child carries with it partially the rights of its expectant Mother. The mother carries an additional right in law: the right to privacy (which she shares with her doctor regarding the unborn child). Consequently, if a woman decides to extend her full rights to the unborn (of natural birth) and it is evidenced to other witnesses, then to 'remove' through an official act of murder or wreckless homicide makes the doer chargeable.

Moreover, it is statue that constructs the crime that is what is taking up by a DA.