Zone1 Let's talk "Force Doctrine", do we really have rights?

[Mr. Friscus]

I've heard some commentators talk about force doctrine, and it basically states that while the founders identified truths that were self evident and basic rights... force doctrine states that mere claims mean nothing and it's only what you can enforce that matters, so the "rights" don't technically exist unless you have the force to enforce them.

It's an interesting concept. I fully support the founding fathers assessment, but it also puts things in a more global perspective, as so many Americans either take their country for granted or assume others in horrible countries have the same voice and power.

Let's apply this to an extreme example:
1. Men are biologically stronger than women overall by a lot (there are exceptions, but it's the general 90% that matters)
2. Men protect women as they are the lionshare of protections jobs, military jobs, infrastructure jobs, etc.
3. While wailing feminists try to chest up and say that men are oppressing them and they are "strong women" who are resisting it.. if men all banded together and decided to enslave women, it would happen within 48 hours.
4. While the "rights" would be broken, the force would dictate what "rights" you think you had.

I'm not at all condoning this, I'm just using an example. Are there natural "rights"? or is just stating them meaningless and it's only what you can enforce?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Mr. Friscus]

View attachment 1110313

I don't think it's that hyperbolic, it's more of a philosophical question.

 

[Oddball]

I don't think it's that hyperbolic, it's more of a philosophical question.

It's not hyperbolic, it's fact.

Anytime anyone says "we need to pass a law", they are literally saying that people who don't want to comply need a gun waved in their face to be forced comply.

The State is organized proactive aggression....Period, full stop.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It's not hyperbolic, it's fact.

Anytime anyone says "we need to pass a law", they are literally saying that people who don't want to comply need a gun waved in their face to be forced comply.

The State is organized proactive aggression....Period, full stop.

While I bring up "Force doctrine", the constitution and Declaration of Independence out line these "rights".

But yes, what good is a "rule" if you can't enforce it?

 

[Oddball]

While I bring up "Force doctrine", the constitution and Declaration of Independence out line these "rights".

But yes, what good is a "rule" if you can't enforce it?

"The rules" were supposedly put in place to protect the population from force and fraud, not as a tool to commit force and fraud.

The utter folly of The State, summed up in one meme....

 

[Dekster]

I've heard some commentators talk about force doctrine, and it basically states that while the founders identified truths that were self evident and basic rights... force doctrine states that mere claims mean nothing and it's only what you can enforce that matters, so the "rights" don't technically exist unless you have the force to enforce them.

It's an interesting concept. I fully support the founding fathers assessment, but it also puts things in a more global perspective, as so many Americans either take their country for granted or assume others in horrible countries have the same voice and power.

Let's apply this to an extreme example:
1. Men are biologically stronger than women overall by a lot (there are exceptions, but it's the general 90% that matters)
2. Men protect women as they are the lionshare of protections jobs, military jobs, infrastructure jobs, etc.
3. While wailing feminists try to chest up and say that men are oppressing them and they are "strong women" who are resisting it.. if men all banded together and decided to enslave women, it would happen within 48 hours.
4. While the "rights" would be broken, the force would dictate what "rights" you think you had.

I'm not at all condoning this, I'm just using an example. Are there natural "rights"? or is just stating them meaningless and it's only what you can enforce?

It isn't a matter of what you can enforce. It is a matter of what society will enforce. As for the founders, they were really just rationalizing that they wanted to take the power from King George and give it to themselves. As a global matter, we are still fighting over this stuff 236 years later so it is a bit self-indulgent for Americans to expect others to magically achieve our ideals at all, let alone in less time. Unfortunately, people too often ignore the Declaration of Independence part about government "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". It isn't even in our own founding that it was ever seen as the US getting to decide for anybody but the US, but here we are nonetheless always trying to impose our values on other countries.