mattskramer
Senior Member
Specious argument anyways.
If our rights to our lives and property aren't inherent to our being (i.e. natural), then it only follows that we only enjoy "rights" that some authority is willing to "allow" us.
Those aren't rights, they're privileges...There's a huge difference.
My argument is not specious. It is as real as the chair in which I sit. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a natural right no matter what Thomas Jefferson said so eloquently. There are things that we (as individuals, societies, etc.), often based on general consensus or consent, consider to be rights.
You seem to be suggesting that all rights are derived from the authority of others. Well if I was born on an island with no one else around, would I have any freedom or would I just sit their waiting for person number two to come along to decide what I could do? If this person decided what I can and can't do would that not make him my master and not an equal? What made him so special that he has this power over me that I already do not possess for myself?
If you were alone, then you would decide for yourself, or based on whatever philosophy or religious book that you hold, what is right and wrong. If another person came along then one of several things might happen based on your values and his values. You might kill him or he might kill you. One of you might enslave the other. Is cannibalism a natural right? On the other hand, perhaps you and he each manage to communicate and reach some mutual understanding. Anyway, nothing naturally makes you his master nor makes him your master. It depends on a roll of the dice.