What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Dr.Traveler]

Actually I don't. I believe there's an expatriation tax.

So pay it and leave. Look at it just like paying the tolls on a toll road, which is what all roads would be if you turned the responsibility for roads and bridges over to the private sector.

 

[JBeukema]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/80925-demonstrating-natural-rights.html

 

[JBeukema]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

Social Contract

 

[JBeukema]

Kevin's 'rights' in our society are not unmallable. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, for instance, and one can't not practice cannibalism on one's property. If he is concerned about taxation and property, he needs to take up with his state and national legislatures.

Both have been done, actually


dumbass

 

[JBeukema]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

circular argument

yes, they can

and they do

it's called taxation

 

[JBeukema]

Kevin's 'rights' in our society are not unmallable. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, for instance, and one can't not practice cannibalism on one's property. If he is concerned about taxation and property, he needs to take up with his state and national legislatures.

One cannot yell fire in a theater or practice cannibalism, even on your own property, because both actions constitute a violation of the rights of others. I clearly said in the first post that you don't have any rights that infringe on the rights of others.

It's a violation of the law, that is, of the social contract between the people around you. Acting against a member thereof results in a collective action by the group. Kinda like how attacking Arch Duke Ferninand got everyone's allies involved and led to WWI

 

[JBeukema]

but kevin,
You don't have a right to a fire department and you don't have a right to have roads and you don't have a right to have a or a post office EITHER...or policemen or even secret service for the president...you don't have a right to wall street regulation or schools etc yet taxes are taken from us and given to another....

You have a right to be free from aggression.

Some of the things that you listed -police, firemen, military, SS agents- are the collectivized extension of that individual right.

Insofar as schools, the post office, and regulations are concerned, those can be MUCH more efficiently provided by freedom and free enterprise rather than gubmint aggression.

They are constructs of the collective used to enforce the collective will and protect mutual interests

 

[JBeukema]

What Constitutes a "Right?"

Three Lefts constitute a Right

Not if they're all 30-degree turnes

 

[JBeukema]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

From the right to pursue the fulifillment of one's life... which is endowed from God.

 

[JBeukema]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

More idiocy on parade...

You have no power to take my right to my life from me...

Yes, I do. It's called an AR-15.


You already had your ass handed you you in regards to this a long time ago

 

[JBeukema]

Ability are the traits and talents you are born with. You never needed a right to have them.

Rights are concoctions of man to tell others what they are allowed and not allowed to do.

Rights are promises made by politicians and governments in order to ease the peoples tension as they seek new methods to oppress them.

Rights are propaganda concepts used to catch wind under an extremists goals.

In pure Anarchy, there are no constitutional endorsed rights nor any government to "protect"(ha ha) them. Only your potentials and abilities and the will to actualize them.

ROFLMNAO...

And that is all there is to identify anti-Americans... simply get them to start talkin'...

Good job Kevin...

Also... notice how where the idiots are defending taxation; all they ever mention is necessary infrastructure... if you read back over those posts which sought to answer that, you'll notice that all of the examples of just taxation are 'Highways, Military and local entities of Police and Fire deptartments... NOT ONE OF THE IDIOTS MENTIONED SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS.

They're idiots for not supporting social entitlements?

 

[JBeukema]

The argument is lost in the first sentence, "A "right" is something that you have naturally." You do? Explain natural. For that matter explain right? Even your life is not natural as it flows from a whole spectrum of human and societal interactions.

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother you people are truly a waste of skin.

Natural is that which occurs as a function nature... A right is that to which one is rightfully entitled..

You just go in little retarded circles, don't you?

 

[JBeukema]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness...You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

A man has the right to marry a man.

Only on the left

 

[JBeukema]

No man has a right to marry anyone...

A valid right is that which where such is exercised that such does not usurp the rights of another.

Where such undermines the viability of the culture, such is rendered morally unjustifiable and as such is not a right of any kind.

Its not a complex issue sis... its just one which falls beyond your means to comprehend.

However, you have to prove that the viability of the culture is undermined...and you have not done that.

Nope... that's established bydefault, through the natural tendency of the species to dry right up where homosexuality catches on... add to that the promotion of debauchery, hedonism and general degeneracy... as a rule... those things are not the things which sustain a viable culture.

You can't be this retarded for real, can you?

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...

That's possible the dumbest statement in this thread

 

[JBeukema]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

From being born.

The three natural rights we have are life. liberty.property.

Demonstrate the existence thereof

 

[JBeukema]

Can you spell that out for me? Just want to double check what you are saying....

Well there is a limit to the level which some issues can be stupified... but I'll try.


Would you agree that where one advocates for the lifting of restrictions on those things which are highly sought, that the certainty is that the highly sought thing will come to be engaged in at excellerated levels?

Meaning, for instance, that if people want a product... but there are restrictions which make it difficult to get that product, that the restrictions regulate how many people get that product...

Now the restriction might be the natural availability... which of course drives up the price, which limits the people who will get that product to those with the means to purchase it...

Well, Sexual gratification is a fairly coveted 'thing'... and cultural mores, taboo, standards... morals... call it whatever ya prefer... but THOSE are the ONLY things which stand between people and this highly coveted 'thing...'

With me so far? I mean, there's two genders... sexual gratification is already promoted through biology... the lion's share of the species has the means... so... REALLY... the only thing between 'sexual anarchy' or a sexual free-for-all, are the cultural standards of morality that generate the mores by which each individual is expected to respect in terms of behavior.

Are you somehow implying that if the rights for gays to marry each other was allowed, that there would be a sudden rush of heterosexuals into homosexuality?

Are you implying that a heterosexual man might say "Gee, now that gays can get married, I think I'll suck some dick!"?

Yes, the law is An intervention to help people like PI and RGS resist their urges....


I thought that much was obvious

 

[JBeukema]

I DO advocate that no man has a right to marry another man... as to do so demonstrates abnormal behavior; and is a sign of an unhealthy culture; and this due to the failure of the culture to maintain sufficiently high standards to prevent such; thus the remedy for such being to RAISE the standards of behavior, to hold ourselves to HIGHER standard, which will result in the restablishment of a healthy culture. And this on the certainty that to continue to lower the standard of personal behavior will and can only result in further cultural decadence.

Again, society over individual rights.

The very thing he accuses others of

 

[JBeukema]

[

But such would be a cultural acceptance of abnormal sexual behavior as acceptable and normal... thus where individuals are coming into sexual awareness, they would be less inclined to avoid homosexuality and more likely to 'experiment' in such... thus be subject to all of the potential ramifications thereof.

That's if homosexuality is unnatural. I don't believe it is. Cultural acceptance is another thing all together. About time people grew the fuck up IMO. Nobody else's business but their own. I think homosexuality, in the western world, is well accepted except by a margin of small-minded conservatives, usually of a Christian bent.

Debunking Christianity: Homosexuality, The Bible vs. Nature Divergent beliefs about the nature of homosexuality Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Homosexuality: Against Nature? Homosexuality in Nature Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal Homosexuality: Nature, Nurture and Compassion Nature versus Nurture: Homosexuality's Link to Biology and Society | Serendip's Exchange Nature's Homosexuality - Homosexuality, as natural as heterosexual sex - Softpedia Origin of Homosexuality? Britons, Canadians Say “Nature” The Natural "Crime Against Nature": Homosexual Behaviors In Animals Understanding Homosexuality: "Nature Vs. Nurture" Revisited - Associated Content List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

 

[JBeukema]

Nothing like getting one's life philosophy from a stage comedian.

What's next....Financial advice from jugglers??

nice ad hom