From: tsm@fastmail.ca   
      
   On Feb 16, 2026 at 12:02:33 AM EST, "Creon"  wrote:   
      
   > At Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:30:45 -0500, Noah Sombrero  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 11:27:02 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2/13/2026 9:52 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:27:41 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2/13/2026 9:14 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2/13/2026 12:53 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2/12/26 9:15 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2/12/2026 9:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> What I mean is that governments can grant that they will not impose   
   >>>>>>>>> certain situations on you, which they still might.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> But as far as the universe is concerned.  You have no rights.  There   
   >>>>>>>>> is no natural law to base social structures on.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It there were  natural laws that are inherent, universal, and   
   >>>>>>>>> inalienable, derived from human nature and  reason rather than   
   granted   
   >>>>>>>>> by governments, to be inalienable natural laws, there would be no way   
   >>>>>>>>> to not receive them.  Nobody would die, everybody would have liberty,   
   >>>>>>>>> and loving spouses.  The truth is you have no right to such things,   
   >>>>>>>>> and far too many around the world don't have them.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> To be natural laws that are inherent, universal, and inalienable,   
   they   
   >>>>>>>>> would have to apply to everybody in the world, not only americans.   
   And   
   >>>>>>>>> when suffering people come to america seeking a place where they can   
   >>>>>>>>> have such things, we could not send them back where they came from.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That is a deliberate misstatement of what natural law is all about.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Which is: There are certain principles that work better than others.   
   >>>>>>>> When human law and society aligns with those principles, the systems   
   >>>>>>>> created within that structure perform better, allowing greater human   
   >>>>>>>> flourishing.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> what worked last century, may not work this century, and will not work   
   >>>>>>> next century   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   > the "law" can change when as technology unfolds   
   >>>>>>>   >   
   >>>>>>>   > #god   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That's not how universal principles work.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Things like:   
   >>>>>> - Don't steal   
   >>>>>> - Don't initiate harm to or murder other people   
   >>>>>> - Don't deliberately speak untruth   
   >>>>>> - Take responsibility for your actions   
   >>>>>> - Don't envy or promote resentment for what others have   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> It kind of looks like two informants are not smarter than a fifth   
   >>>>> grader. Maybe they think communism is a better system. It's starting to   
   >>>>> look like that because they don't seem to have any cogent arguments for   
   >>>>> a closed society. YMMV.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Everyone that's been to school in the US and Europe learned that based   
   >>>>> on international law and philosophical tradition, humans are considered   
   >>>>> to have innate, inherent, and inalienable human rights.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Learned.  Right that is how social structures get passed down.  And   
   >>>> true they must be learned.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> These rights are not granted by governments, but are possessed by every   
   >>>>> individual from birth simply by virtue of being human.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Unless they are not permitted by governments.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Including rights to life, liberty, and freedom, as established by the UN   
   >>>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe they need to get some   
   >>>>> smarts and read a history book.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yes, too bad the un is so toothless.   
   >>>>   
   >>> So, we are agreed. People have inalienable rights. Thanks.   
   >>   
   >> Nope.  But you agree with yourself.   
   >   
   > I agree with a lot of what you say, Noah, but not this.   
   >   
   > Some rights are inherently part of a human being -- I use   
   > the term "God-given", and perhaps I should star that with the   
   > caveat that "God", to me, is mostly "Logos" -- the Logos of   
   > Heraclitus, c. 500BCE   
   >   
   > He used "Logos" to describe the "divine order".   
      
   Love the guy :)   
   Others who admired and were influenced by Heraclitus:   
      
   The Stoics   
   Plato   
   Hegel   
   Nietzsche   
   Heidegger   
   Carl Jung   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)