What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

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.

again, define: God

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Except natural rights have been defined, and they apply to everyone. You're simply trying to change the definition.

 

[Diuretic]

Define: God

many gods are impossible by definition and therefore can be proven to not exist

I'm sort of reluctant to get into word definitions because they really are about, well, definitions of words. Words are a means of expressing a concept, among other things. 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.

For me to Distinction is Individual and Personal. What bothers me is witnessing Others trying to Beat the belief out of Others. I ask Why is it so Important to Deny Every acknowledgement of a Supreme Being? Is it about claiming ownership of every aspect of our being by those that control the society? Is it so necessary to deny the appeal of Conscience and Soul, to a Higher Truth? Is it an Embarrassment that the controlling authority must conceal at all cost, rather than reconsider wrong action? I think that the ego is jealous of the Soul and seeks to murder it, and dispose of all evidence of the crime.

For me at least all I want is to live without being subjected to the end result of someone else's spiritual beliefs. I'm quite happy for individuals to have those beliefs, if it doesn't affect me. Where I object is when those beliefs come into conflict with my own wellbeing.

 

[Setarcos]

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.

Not necessarily. if the majority pisses and shits in the water supply, that's very bad for the majority

 

[Intense]

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.

Now.... What is it, in a Person, that makes Slavery Wrong? What is it in a Person that makes it wrong to take from that Person unlawfully, by force?

 

[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

Except natural rights have been defined, and they apply to everyone. You're simply trying to change the definition.

You never defined or demonstrated them; you only made claims to certain 'rights'

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yet you said I was the king. So as king, and as a libertarian, I would give them the land.

 

[Setarcos]

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.

Now.... What is it, in a Person, that makes Slavery Wrong? What is it in a Person that makes it wrong to take from that Person unlawfully, by force?

define: wrong

 

[Diuretic]

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.

But the legality of your actions will be decided by the state. The reason is that self defence is circumscribed by law. You have a right to self-defence but it isn't absolute.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Not necessarily. if the majority pisses and shits in the water supply, that's very bad for the majority

The majority is unlikely to do that which will be detrimental to themselves.

 

[Setarcos]

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.

Yet you said I was the king. So as king, and as a libertarian, I would give them the land.

yet they were wrong to demand it of you or to attempt to lay claim to it, yes?

Therefore, you must condemn the founding fathers and many other revolutionaries. How do you square that with your libertarian ideals?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?


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

Except natural rights have been defined, and they apply to everyone. You're simply trying to change the definition.

You never defined or demonstrated them; you only made claims to certain 'rights'

I have defined it. You simply choose to ignore this definition and then try to change it to fit your argument.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

Happiness has never been found through immorality... such brings misery, chaos and calamity... and if pursued long enough, catastrophe is inevitable.

 

[Setarcos]

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

Not necessarily. if the majority pisses and shits in the water supply, that's very bad for the majority

The majority is unlikely to do that which will be detrimental to themselves.

Really?

have you seen the air in any major metropolitan area?

 

[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. 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.

But the legality of your actions will be decided by the state. The reason is that self defence is circumscribed by law. You have a right to self-defence but it isn't absolute.

What if the state were to decide that I don't have the right to self-defense? Without natural rights in what way could I argue that this is immoral? If I don't have natural rights then I don't have the right to my life or my property and I have no argument.

 

[Diuretic]

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

Not necessarily. if the majority pisses and shits in the water supply, that's very bad for the majority

The majority is unlikely to do that which will be detrimental to themselves.

Only to the minority?

 

[Diuretic]

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?

Happiness has never been found through immorality... such brings misery, chaos and calamity... and if pursued long enough, catastrophe is inevitable.

That's only because of societal guilt trips

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yet you said I was the king. So as king, and as a libertarian, I would give them the land.

yet they were wrong to demand it of you or to attempt to lay claim to it, yes?

Therefore, you must condemn the founding fathers and many other revolutionaries. How do you square that with your libertarian ideals?

Demand what of me? I don't recall them making a demand of me. And how do the founding fathers play into this ridiculous hypothetical arrangement?

 

[Intense]

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.

But the legality of your actions will be decided by the state. The reason is that self defence is circumscribed by law. You have a right to self-defence but it isn't absolute.

What if the state were to decide that I don't have the right to self-defense? Without natural rights in what way could I argue that this is immoral? If I don't have natural rights then I don't have the right to my life or my property and I have no argument.

That is precisely where the Statist wants you to be, before cleaning you out.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Kevin, this kid Seta is an imbecile... She's an endless litanny of circular cliches...

She doesn't offer anything of value, except perhaps as a punching bag. Better to slap her ass in ignore and be done with it.