Natural Rights are Really based on property rights

[ihopehefails]

No soul searching necessary. I made friends reality a few years ago.

Well if you are happy with yourself....

 

[JBeukema]

Natural Rights are Really based on property rights

Either property rights are natural rights (A) or they are social rights (B).


A) natural rights are based on themselves?

B) natural rights are based on social rights? then they don't exist unless society labels your social rights 'natural' like some sort of brand name

 

[JBeukema]

I have this right because the manufacterer sold me the rights to use the computer any way I want without any restrictions and because of that no third party can interfere with that since no rights were transferred to them. They were only transferred to me.

I think you're conflating rights with ability here.

You do have the ability to download copyrighted music without paying for it, but you don't have the right to do that. Sorry. It's why we have copyright laws; the creator's right to compensation for their work supersedes your imagined right to put whatever you want on your computer.

Just an example of where a third party can, in fact, tell you what you have the right to put on your hard drive.

I'm not disagreeing with you but can the creator of the downloaded music tell he how to use my computer on this board? I don't have the right to use his music in any other way that the creator wants but he can't tell me how to use my rights over my computer.

the same way we can tell you you're not allowed to use your gun to rob a store or go on a shooting spree


why are libertardians so stupid?

 

[JBeukema]

=

We actually delegate certain rights to the government

no, we don't. The government is given powers and authorities, not rights.

Come back after you've passes civics 101.

 

[rikules]

The concept of individual liberty and natural law is really based on the concept of property ownership. When a person owns something they possess certain rights to it that other people don't have. They own the right to use their computer in a manor that the rights over that computer allow them to. Those rights were transferred from the previous owner so when I buy a computer from a manufacturer they are really transferring their rights to me and because of that no other person can tell me how to use those 'transferred rights'. This enables a great deal amount of freedom since I can use those property rights as a means of manifesting my free will such as posting on this website which is freedom of speech. I have this right because the manufacterer sold me the rights to use the computer any way I want without any restrictions and because of that no third party can interfere with that since no rights were transferred to them. They were only transferred to me.

Not only do I own my physical possession but I own my own self and those rights, just like the computer, were transferred to me from some source. Everyone has the same rights over their own selves that were transferred to them which means that every individual has an exclusive right to their own existence and, at the same time, have no rights over someone elses existence since everyone fully owns their own person and nothing more. This means no one has a right to tell someone else how to exist which puts each one of us in a state of freedom where we are immune from the control of others.

god created the universe

god created ALL THINGS in the universe

god owns ALL THINGS

by extension...all things belong to gods people

your computer
your house
your car

all belong to god
and gods peoples


if you are not an evangelical christian then you can OWN NOTHING

and since all rights are based upon BOTH PROPERTY and GOD (our creator)

then if you are NOT one of gods people (evangelical christian)
you can own NO PROPERTY
and you have NO RIGHTS

your welcome

glad I could explain all this for you

 

[industry7]

BS
You can own nothing and still have the same rights as anyone else.
Something about the US Constitution.

I have the right to assemble but what good does it do if I can't rent a place to assemble with other people? I need a physical piece of property in order to manifest my freedom and if you protect protect property rights then you protect individual freedom since whatever hall that I use to assemble I obtain certain rights from the owner to assemble on his property. My right to assemble exist in the rights the owner of the hall allows me to use it for and if you protect those rights then you protect the freedom to assemble.

You can assemble in public space.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think you're conflating rights with ability here.

You do have the ability to download copyrighted music without paying for it, but you don't have the right to do that. Sorry. It's why we have copyright laws; the creator's right to compensation for their work supersedes your imagined right to put whatever you want on your computer.

Just an example of where a third party can, in fact, tell you what you have the right to put on your hard drive.

I'm not disagreeing with you but can the creator of the downloaded music tell he how to use my computer on this board? I don't have the right to use his music in any other way that the creator wants but he can't tell me how to use my rights over my computer.

the same way we can tell you you're not allowed to use your gun to rob a store or go on a shooting spree


why are libertardians so stupid?

I believe the store owner's property rights are what actaully triggers the law from being executed. You assume that it is 'we' that are telling the robber that he can't rob a store but what if the same 'we' said it was OK?

Shouldn't the store owner have absolute say in how his property gets used and shouldn't he have an absolute say in whether the person can take his life since it is his life to begin with? No matter what you say the individual has veto power over his own existence against others.

 

[ihopehefails]

BS
You can own nothing and still have the same rights as anyone else.
Something about the US Constitution.

I have the right to assemble but what good does it do if I can't rent a place to assemble with other people? I need a physical piece of property in order to manifest my freedom and if you protect protect property rights then you protect individual freedom since whatever hall that I use to assemble I obtain certain rights from the owner to assemble on his property. My right to assemble exist in the rights the owner of the hall allows me to use it for and if you protect those rights then you protect the freedom to assemble.

You can assemble in public space.

Not without permits which is just asking the owner of that public space aka the government permission to use its property. It can deny you the permits based on the fact it is its property to begin with at which point you can use your own property to assemble on without any restriction.

 

[ihopehefails]

Natural Rights are Really based on property rights

Either property rights are natural rights (A) or they are social rights (B).


A) natural rights are based on themselves?

B) natural rights are based on social rights? then they don't exist unless society labels your social rights 'natural' like some sort of brand name

A social right is not a right since no person can declare it based on their own authority. They have to wait until 'society' gives it to them which is nothing more than denying what that person wants to do when that person has the already existing ability to do it. That is not freedom. It is captivity!