What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

I've already defined natural rights in this thread. The very first post gives a nice definition, I believe.

The OP contains assertions and examples but no demonstration- only rehtoric designed to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Means that no 'rights' can exist, since a 'right' to property (esp possession of land by farmers) means my 'right' to salvage and forage and take that which is available to me.

Yet by my definition in the first post you can clearly conclude that you have no right to salvage or forage on land owned by somebody else.

Nor you any right to stop me


The end result of following your argument is that noone can really have any rights at all. To stop me from exercising such a right, you must get others 9the gov') to help you stop me and the rest of the hoarde- you must enter into your own social contract to stop those I have contracted with to raid your home.

 

[Setarcos]

If you don't believe in natural rights then legality would imply morality because you only have those rights which a government representing a majority, or a direct majority, says you have.

Wrong. Legality implies ethical acceptability. Mortality is another, related, matter.

What is morality without a belief in natural rights?

Morality is instinct, the product of evolutionary pressures. Atop this base, we construct our ethics.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The OP contains assertions and examples but no demonstration- only rehtoric designed to appeal to the emotions of the audience.
Means that no 'rights' can exist, since a 'right' to property (esp possession of land by farmers) means my 'right' to salvage and forage and take that which is available to me.

Yet by my definition in the first post you can clearly conclude that you have no right to salvage or forage on land owned by somebody else.

Nor you any right to stop me


The end result of following your argument is that noone can really have any rights at all. To stop me from exercising such a right, you must get others 9the gov') to help you stop me and the rest of the hoarde- you must enter into your own social contract to stop those I have contracted with to raid your home.

I have the right to defend my natural rights, such as property. If you enter my home and attempt to rob me then I have the right to stop you. I don't need the permission of the police or any other majority to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't believe in natural rights then legality would imply morality because you only have those rights which a government representing a majority, or a direct majority, says you have.

Wrong. Legality implies ethical acceptability. Mortality is another, related, matter.

What is morality without a belief in natural rights?

What is the right to pursue happiness, anyway? What if a person's pursuit of happiness involves immorality?

 

[Setarcos]

Yet by my definition in the first post you can clearly conclude that you have no right to salvage or forage on land owned by somebody else.

Nor you any right to stop me


The end result of following your argument is that noone can really have any rights at all. To stop me from exercising such a right, you must get others 9the gov') to help you stop me and the rest of the hoarde- you must enter into your own social contract to stop those I have contracted with to raid your home.

I have the right to defend my natural rights, such as property.

then i've the right to fight to take from you what I must to exercise my right to live. We need food and you have it.

If you enter my home and attempt to rob me then I have the right to stop you.

If you try to stop me from ensuring my survival, I've there right to stop you


Yet another example of the rhetoric of natural rights leading to meaningless absurdity

 

[Setarcos]

Wrong. Legality implies ethical acceptability. Mortality is another, related, matter.

What is morality without a belief in natural rights?

What is the right to pursue happiness, anyway? What if a person's pursuit of happiness involves immorality?

What if it involves marrying someone of the same sex?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong. Legality implies ethical acceptability. Mortality is another, related, matter.

What is morality without a belief in natural rights?

Morality is instinct, the product of evolutionary pressures. Atop this base, we construct our ethics.

This simply proves my point, in my opinion. Natural rights are instinctual, and you cannot therefore have morality without a belief in natural rights. Slavery is obviously not moral, and goes against the natural rights philosophy, but if you engage in slavery then you deny natural rights and morality. Natural rights and morality go hand in hand.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nor you any right to stop me


The end result of following your argument is that noone can really have any rights at all. To stop me from exercising such a right, you must get others 9the gov') to help you stop me and the rest of the hoarde- you must enter into your own social contract to stop those I have contracted with to raid your home.

I have the right to defend my natural rights, such as property.

then i've the right to fight to take from you what I must to exercise my right to live. We need food and you have it.

If you enter my home and attempt to rob me then I have the right to stop you.

If you try to stop me from ensuring my survival, I've there right to stop you


Yet another example of the rhetoric of natural rights leading to meaningless absurdity

Natural rights cannot collide with one another. You have no right to live off of my property.

 

[Setarcos]

What is morality without a belief in natural rights?

Morality is instinct, the product of evolutionary pressures. Atop this base, we construct our ethics.

This simply proves my point, in my opinion. Natural rights are instinctual, and you cannot therefore have morality without a belief in natural rights. Slavery is obviously not moral, and goes against the natural rights philosophy, but if you engage in slavery then you deny natural rights and morality. Natural rights and morality go hand in hand.

Morality is simply instinctual aversion to certain behavior.

'Natural rights' is philosophical rhetoric.

The latter is an attempt to justify the former; the former is in no way dependent on the latter.

The slavedriver can believe in natural rights- just different rights than you do. It is no different, in principle, to end rights with your own race than with your own species. They are simply different sized in-groups.

 

[Diuretic]

It seems to me, and I don't know if this has already been addressed or not as I stopped following this thread about 1,000 posts ago, that if you deny natural rights philosophy then you must accept that a collective majority has absolute control over any minority. Is it not true that if you deny that I have my natural rights that any majority could decree or legislate that I am a slave, or that I have no right to my property, or even that I have no right to live at all?

Been meaning to talk to you about starting this thread Kevin

I have to disagree with your first point, that to deny natural rights I accept a collective majority has absolute control over a minority. One doesn't follow from the other. Denying natural rights doesn't deny the concept of rights, it's just a disagreement about the origin. Rights still exist. And the abrogation or invasion of those rights isn't protected by the concept of their origins. They're still violated.

It's true that any majority could enslave you, deny your right to property or to live, yes. And provided it was done within the law such actions would be legal. Done without accepted due process that would be immoral but it might well be legal.

Control over what influences the majority, does not redefine what is absolute. It may deny the nature of something, or just be blind to it. That is the battle between the Statist and the Declarationist.

Rights aren't absolutes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Morality is instinct, the product of evolutionary pressures. Atop this base, we construct our ethics.

This simply proves my point, in my opinion. Natural rights are instinctual, and you cannot therefore have morality without a belief in natural rights. Slavery is obviously not moral, and goes against the natural rights philosophy, but if you engage in slavery then you deny natural rights and morality. Natural rights and morality go hand in hand.

Morality is simply instinctual aversion to certain behavior.

'Natural rights' is philosophical rhetoric.

The latter is an attempt to justify the former; the former is in no way dependent on the latter.

The slavedriver can believe in natural rights- just different rights than you do. It is no different, in principle, to end rights with your own race than with your own species. They are simply different sized in-groups.

Except the right to slavery would be opposed to the definition of natural rights, and therefore cannot be counted among our natural rights. You can't simply say that everyone can have a different definition of what natural rights are. The natural rights philosophy has a clear definition, as I tried to lay out in the first post.

 

[Intense]

You can believe what you like. The fact is that the existence of God has not been proven here or anywhere else. The same old arguments are trotted out and dressed up for contemporary viewing, whether it be from Anselm or Kalaam. They are simply mind experiments and word games which amount to nothing in terms of proof. To claim otherwise is rank stupidity.

Is not the inverse also as true as what you claim?

What's the 'inverse' of claiming that no one here (or anywhere) has proven the existence of God?

What if God exists and we don't?

Are we to deny all science and math, rooted in Theory? Is it to be discounted?

The argument about God's existence is not going to be proved here either way. You either believe or you don't. That is your business. What you Teach others as absolute, is held to account.

 

[Setarcos]

I have the right to defend my natural rights, such as property.

then i've the right to fight to take from you what I must to exercise my right to live. We need food and you have it.

If you enter my home and attempt to rob me then I have the right to stop you.

If you try to stop me from ensuring my survival, I've there right to stop you


Yet another example of the rhetoric of natural rights leading to meaningless absurdity

Natural rights cannot collide with one another. You have no right to live off of my property.

interesting...

Did i forget to tell you that your name is George and you call yourself a king?

My hoard is all the peasants. There's been a drought and we're starving to death after your armies collect your 'taxes' for farming on your land.

As a Libertarian, you'd support our cause, I'd think. Of course, that'd violate your stated principles.

 

[Diuretic]

I think the general understanding of "God" is reasonably well known and accepted for the sake of the argument. If anyone can prove or disprove the existence of a force which created the universe then best of luck to them.

You just moved the goalposts. 'God' is understood to be refer specifically to the god(s) of the Abrahamic tradition. 'The gghod of Abraham' =/= 'a force which created the universe'

The former is specific claims about a personal deity alleged to possess certain traits and alleged to be eidenced by certain pieces of parchment.

the latter can refer to branes and strings or quantum foam or anything that caused the universe to form- it is a meaningless concept where 'god' simply refers to any unknown agent(s) which might have been at play.

I find your post very intellectually dishonest

Then I'd appreciate the correction of it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

then i've the right to fight to take from you what I must to exercise my right to live. We need food and you have it.

If you try to stop me from ensuring my survival, I've there right to stop you


Yet another example of the rhetoric of natural rights leading to meaningless absurdity

Natural rights cannot collide with one another. You have no right to live off of my property.

interesting...

Did i forget to tell you that your name is George and you call yourself a king?

My hoard is all the peasants. There's been a drought and we're starving to death after your armies collect your 'taxes' for farming on your land.

As a Libertarian, you'd support our cause, I'd think. Of course, that'd violate your stated principles.

I'm not even sure what the hell you're talking about. My name is Kevin and as a libertarian I would end the kingship, not collect the taxes, and allow the "peasants" to live off of their own land.

 

[Diuretic]

It seems to me, and I don't know if this has already been addressed or not as I stopped following this thread about 1,000 posts ago, that if you deny natural rights philosophy then you must accept that a collective majority has absolute control over any minority. Is it not true that if you deny that I have my natural rights that any majority could decree or legislate that I am a slave, or that I have no right to my property, or even that I have no right to live at all?

Been meaning to talk to you about starting this thread Kevin

I have to disagree with your first point, that to deny natural rights I accept a collective majority has absolute control over a minority. One doesn't follow from the other. Denying natural rights doesn't deny the concept of rights, it's just a disagreement about the origin. Rights still exist. And the abrogation or invasion of those rights isn't protected by the concept of their origins. They're still violated.

It's true that any majority could enslave you, deny your right to property or to live, yes. And provided it was done within the law such actions would be legal. Done without accepted due process that would be immoral but it might well be legal.

But if you don't believe in natural rights why is it immoral? If you don't believe in natural rights then legality would imply morality because you only have those rights which a government representing a majority, or a direct majority, says you have.

Clearly any violation of the rights of an individual without due process is harmful to the individual and potentially to the whole of society.

 

[Setarcos]

Except the right to slavery would be opposed to the definition of natural rights, and therefore cannot be counted among our natural rights.

Because you define them as applying to negroes? What if I define them as applying only to God's people?

See why you must demonstrate them and provide a meaningful framework for determine whether and what rights exist and not just make them up as you go along?

You can't simply say that everyone can have a different definition of what natural rights are. The natural rights philosophy has a clear definition, as I tried to lay out in the first post.

No, it doesn't. It's just 'I have a right to what I think is moral'. No clear and meaningful framework and no objective system or proof has ever been laid out.'


Natural rights are the rhetoric in which men dress up emotional pleas devoid of reason

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Been meaning to talk to you about starting this thread Kevin

I have to disagree with your first point, that to deny natural rights I accept a collective majority has absolute control over a minority. One doesn't follow from the other. Denying natural rights doesn't deny the concept of rights, it's just a disagreement about the origin. Rights still exist. And the abrogation or invasion of those rights isn't protected by the concept of their origins. They're still violated.

It's true that any majority could enslave you, deny your right to property or to live, yes. And provided it was done within the law such actions would be legal. Done without accepted due process that would be immoral but it might well be legal.

But if you don't believe in natural rights why is it immoral? If you don't believe in natural rights then legality would imply morality because you only have those rights which a government representing a majority, or a direct majority, says you have.

Clearly any violation of the rights of an individual without due process is harmful to the individual and potentially to the whole of society.

How so? Without natural rights whatever the majority does would be good for the majority.

 

[Setarcos]

Natural rights cannot collide with one another. You have no right to live off of my property.

interesting...

Did i forget to tell you that your name is George and you call yourself a king?

My hoard is all the peasants. There's been a drought and we're starving to death after your armies collect your 'taxes' for farming on your land.

As a Libertarian, you'd support our cause, I'd think. Of course, that'd violate your stated principles.

I'm not even sure what the hell you're talking about. My name is Kevin and as a libertarian I would end the kingship, not collect the taxes, and allow the "peasants" to live off of their own land.

But the land belongs to thew king and his family- you just said they hae no right to live off of it.


Make up your mind.

 

[Setarcos]

Clearly any violation of the rights of an individual without due process is harmful to the individual and potentially to the whole of society.

hence the social contract emerges