What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Without natural rights the majority is going to do what it wants, and if that hurts the minority so be it.

 

[Setarcos]

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.

Your appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy

if you want to argue absolute morality, you're free to try

 

[Diuretic]

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.

If the state did so then the state would probably eventually fall. The state can and should circumscribe the laws on self-defence for good reasons, but to abolish that right would be detrimental to everyone. The point is that the state can effectively abolish self-defence if it wished, whether someone argues it's a natural right or a social right won't make a whit of difference.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Your appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy

if you want to argue absolute morality, you're free to try

You've called on me to "demonstrate," was this not a demonstration?

 

[Setarcos]

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?

the land was the kings- they had no right to kill his soldiers and steal his land.

thus begins another infinite regress

 

[Diuretic]

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

Only to the minority?

Without natural rights the majority is going to do what it wants, and if that hurts the minority so be it.

What stops the majority doing what it wishes?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

If the state did so then the state would probably eventually fall. The state can and should circumscribe the laws on self-defence for good reasons, but to abolish that right would be detrimental to everyone. The point is that the state can effectively abolish self-defence if it wished, whether someone argues it's a natural right or a social right won't make a whit of difference.

Yes, the state could do so. However, without natural rights nobody would have any logical argument against the state doing so, and would simply have to accept it as correct.

 

[Setarcos]

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.

Your appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy

if you want to argue absolute morality, you're free to try

You've called on me to "demonstrate," was this not a demonstration?

You've demonstrated the existence of nothing,. You've merely posted an emotional wailing that you can't throw 'moral' decrees at them (as if it would change anything anyway)

 

[Intense]

Only to the minority?

Without natural rights the majority is going to do what it wants, and if that hurts the minority so be it.

What stops the majority doing what it wishes?

Physical Limitation and Consequence. Cause and Effect.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

the land was the kings- they had no right to kill his soldiers and steal his land.

thus begins another infinite regress

You've now changed the scenario. No where did you say before that the peasants killed anyone or stole anything. You simply said there was a drought and that I must support the cause because I'm a libertarian.

 

[Setarcos]

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.

If the state did so then the state would probably eventually fall. The state can and should circumscribe the laws on self-defence for good reasons, but to abolish that right would be detrimental to everyone. The point is that the state can effectively abolish self-defence if it wished, whether someone argues it's a natural right or a social right won't make a whit of difference.

Yes, the state could do so. However, without natural rights nobody would have any logical argument against the state doing so, and would simply have to accept it as correct.

No, they don't. They just have to acknowledge what's happening. It's on them to rally their neighbors to fight it. Wherre'd yopu get that it'd be 'correct'?!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Only to the minority?

Without natural rights the majority is going to do what it wants, and if that hurts the minority so be it.

What stops the majority doing what it wishes?

Nothing. If the majority decides that the minority are all slaves then that is what it is. But if you believe in natural rights then obviously the majority has no right to enslave the minority.

 

[Setarcos]

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?

the land was the kings- they had no right to kill his soldiers and steal his land.

thus begins another infinite regress

You've now changed the scenario. No where did you say before that the peasants killed anyone or stole anything. You simply said there was a drought and that I must support the cause because I'm a libertarian.

you have a bad memory. remember my hoard invading your home and killing you for at the beginning of the discussion?

 

[Setarcos]

Without natural rights the majority is going to do what it wants, and if that hurts the minority so be it.

What stops the majority doing what it wishes?

Nothing. If the majority decides that the minority are all slaves then that is what it is. But if you believe in natural rights then obviously the majority has no right to enslave the minority.

If you don't believe in natural rights, they still don't have a right to enslave the minority. What's your point?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy

if you want to argue absolute morality, you're free to try

You've called on me to "demonstrate," was this not a demonstration?

You've demonstrated the existence of nothing,. You've merely posted an emotional wailing that you can't throw 'moral' decrees at them (as if it would change anything anyway)

You've changed definitions to fit your arguments, and changed your own hypothetical situations as I addressed them. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. The only thing you've been consistent on is your assertion that natural rights don't exist. Outside of that you've done nothing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the state did so then the state would probably eventually fall. The state can and should circumscribe the laws on self-defence for good reasons, but to abolish that right would be detrimental to everyone. The point is that the state can effectively abolish self-defence if it wished, whether someone argues it's a natural right or a social right won't make a whit of difference.

Yes, the state could do so. However, without natural rights nobody would have any logical argument against the state doing so, and would simply have to accept it as correct.

No, they don't. They just have to acknowledge what's happening. It's on them to rally their neighbors to fight it. Wherre'd yopu get that it'd be 'correct'?!

If you have no natural rights then how could the majority be wrong? They give you your rights so it's only logical that they can take them away.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the land was the kings- they had no right to kill his soldiers and steal his land.

thus begins another infinite regress

You've now changed the scenario. No where did you say before that the peasants killed anyone or stole anything. You simply said there was a drought and that I must support the cause because I'm a libertarian.

you have a bad memory. remember my hoard invading your home and killing you for at the beginning of the discussion?

No. This is what you said.

"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."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What stops the majority doing what it wishes?

Nothing. If the majority decides that the minority are all slaves then that is what it is. But if you believe in natural rights then obviously the majority has no right to enslave the minority.

If you don't believe in natural rights, they still don't have a right to enslave the minority. What's your point?

Why don't they?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

If the state did so then the state would probably eventually fall. The state can and should circumscribe the laws on self-defence for good reasons, but to abolish that right would be detrimental to everyone. The point is that the state can effectively abolish self-defence if it wished, whether someone argues it's a natural right or a social right won't make a whit of difference.

Now how does the state go about abolishing that which it has no means to advance, control, or take?

Again... the anti-theist confuses the RIGHT, with the means to exercise the Right... and government protections which prevent government power from usurping those rights.

Where a government fails to defend the means of the individual to exercise their unalienable rights, that government is a direct, clear and present danger to the individual... and will eventually be destroyed by the individual.

Such is the case with the perpetual failure of Europe and Australia's chronic ne'erdowell status.

 

[Setarcos]

I changed nothing. I simply didn't give you all the details of the scenario in the beginning. It's kinda like that 'veil of ignorane' your side used earlier- you didn't know who was on what side until after constructing your system.