2Parties
Senior Member
Like I keep saying: it doesn't matter. This isn't me being uninquisitive, I just happen to be talking about rights, all rights, so the type of rights isn't relevant.
If you want to have an actual discussion where you may learn something I guess it isn't relevant.
A negative right would be "You have the right to not be enslaved" A positive right would "You are guaranteed health care." The negative right requires nothing of anyone else. The positive right of "you are guaranteed health care" violates "you have the right to keep what you earn" because some people would be enslaved to provide your "right" to health care.
I mean a credible nation, based on the context, what could I mean except essentially every nation on the planet?
Zimbabwe, North Korea?
I can tell that your reasoning seems to stem from your hatred for the status quo, so a natural response for most people who do so is to question the legitimacy of every aspect of the status quo.
Actually my reasoning comes from my opposition to falsehoods, lies, and evil.
Do you even understand what it would entail to not enter it? It means you would have to at the very least leave your country immediately. You would in fact be hypocritical to live in a country that provides you with benefits of civilization while not holding yourself obligated to the social contract. And don't bother looking for a nation that would allow you live in such hypocritical terms; again, no credible nation (read every nation) would allow it. In fact the only truly non-hypocritical way of removing yourself from the contract is if you wanted to live completely off the grid like the uni-bomber. Yes, he could say he removed himself from the social contract.
Just because you believe (and governments obviously) believe in the mythical god known as the "social contract" does not make it valid or right.