...
Recognition of Natural Rights is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This may not be the case for other countries, but here it was used as a justification by the Founding Fathers to rebel against Mother England. If Natural Rights have no legitimacy, then our government is a criminal organization with no legitimacy either. ...
Rats eat cheese.
Billy Jo eats cheese.
∴Billy Jo is a rat and a criminal, Q.E.D.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (securing Natural Rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ~U.S. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
Billy Joe, if I believe, as
a bunch of angsty aristocrats our Founding Fathers did, that Man is God's creation, and it is not, indeed, the case, am I "a criminal [...] with no legitimacy"?
And do you understand what context is, or
bombastic, overblown bullshit impassioned oratory?
"I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never gave much thought what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass.
"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Jefferson intentionally used the word "Creator" and not "God" because he was a Deist as was Thomas Paine.
You don't have to believe in God to have Natural Rights. We all have those rights because of our humanity regardless of how we acquired that humanity. Regardless, the overt stated claim of the Founding Fathers was that Governments exist for the purpose of securing rights that predated government, Rights that exist independent of the State. According to the Founders, governments do not grant Natural Rights. They either recognize them and secure them or they fail to do so and have no just power. This is based on Enlightenment philosophy articulated by John Locke, only Lock used the word "property" and not "happiness".
Look, I'm not going to prove Natural Rights exist with words. I do it with actions, as did the Founding Fathers. We hold those rights to be "self-evident", meaning we are not going to ask anyone to respect them. We will demand that they be respected by what we do. If we make no such demands, then by default we consent to the government we have. It's not an "ought" argument. It's an "is" argument. You don't have to like it just like you don't have to like the Law of Gravity, but ignore it at your peril.
from edit above:
TL;DR:
1. If TFF thought that there are "unalienable rights" and indeed there are none, this misunderstanding would not make them "a criminal organization with no legitimacy." Simply means they were dead wrong.
1a. No suggestion of "unalienable rights" existing outside of TFF's belief in the aforementioned. If you hold Natural Rights to be self-evident, and they turn out to be so much bullshit, this would make you neither a liar nor a criminal.
2. Their "unalienable rights" are not your "Natural Rights," different shit.
3. There's bullshit said because it sounds purty, and makes people feel righteous and good about doing ugly shit. It's just bullshit people say, don't take it seriously. Niggers had no "unalienable rights," neither did bitches. That all changed over 2 & a half centuries. Obama ain't George Washington.
Go figure.