What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

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?

You just asked why they don't have a right to x if they don't have rights

Do you not see how silly your question is?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

So you withheld information from a hypothetical scenario in an attempt to "get me." Bravo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

You just asked why they don't have a right to x if they don't have rights

Do you not see how silly your question is?

If you don't have natural rights, and only have positive rights, then what the majority does cannot be wrong. So why would it be wrong for the majority to enslave the minority if the minority only had the rights the majority gave to them in the first place?

 

[Setarcos]

once again, define:wrong

you keep appealing you moral and emotional terms, yet you refuse to define them

why is that?

 

[Intense]

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.

So you withheld information from a hypothetical scenario in an attempt to "get me." Bravo.

Show an example in History.

 

[Intense]

Totalitarianism on the march!!!!

 

[Setarcos]

Totalitarianism on the march!!!!

You love totalitarianism

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

once again, define:wrong

you keep appealing you moral and emotional terms, yet you refuse to define them

why is that?

Why is it that you change definitions and hypothetical scenarios to benefit your argument?

However, I used "wrong" in post #1803 in place of immoral. How can what the majority does be immoral if your rights come from the majority in the first place? Of course, this is obvious to everyone but yourself.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

The majority controls the legislative process but not the courts. The enforcement arm of the majority is authorised by the legislative process but its actions are limited by the courts. What stops the majority doing what it wishes, among a few other things, are the courts.

 

[Setarcos]

once again, define:wrong

you keep appealing you moral and emotional terms, yet you refuse to define them

why is that?

Why is it that you change definitions and hypothetical scenarios to benefit your argument?

However, I used "wrong" in post #1803 in place of immoral. How can what the majority does be immoral if your rights come from the majority in the first place? Of course, this is obvious to everyone but yourself.

Who, before you right now, ever said morality came from the majority?

Talk about dishonesty

 

[Setarcos]

the courts are a construct of the social contract and the will of the mob.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

once again, define:wrong

you keep appealing you moral and emotional terms, yet you refuse to define them

why is that?

Why is it that you change definitions and hypothetical scenarios to benefit your argument?

However, I used "wrong" in post #1803 in place of immoral. How can what the majority does be immoral if your rights come from the majority in the first place? Of course, this is obvious to everyone but yourself.

Who, before you right now, ever said morality came from the majority?

Talk about dishonesty

Get serious.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

If the state has no means then it's in a parlous condition. If it is a state then it usually has the ability to do what it wishes, within the law or outside of the law.

What controls the executive, is the ability of the other branches of government to do so. That's why the doctrine of the separation of powers is so important.

The individual will never destroy a government. A government may be destroyed by the collective majority, through the ballot box, the courts or by arms.

Australia's economy is doing pretty well, thanks for asking.

 

[Setarcos]

define your terms


you keep making appeals to undefined moral terminology



try being honest for a change

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

define your terms


you keep making appeals to undefined moral terminology



try being honest for a change

Yes, I'll try being honest from here on out, because it was me that changed the definition of natural rights philosophy and changed a hypothetical situation when I saw it wasn't going my way. But excuse me if I don't feel I owe you an explanation of why I used the words that I did. Nobody else is complaining so I assume that my meaning in my posts were clear enough.

 

[Intense]

What stops the majority doing what it wishes?

Physical Limitation and Consequence. Cause and Effect.

The majority controls the legislative process but not the courts. The enforcement arm of the majority is authorised by the legislative process but its actions are limited by the courts. What stops the majority doing what it wishes, among a few other things, are the courts.

Majority opinion is also manipulated through misinformation and deceit. We are lied to all the time. changing the record on the course of events, burying a news story, misreporting, sensationalizing. What is so great on the 75% approval on Constitutional Amendment is it gives us time to react, contemplate, and cool down. It's a high bar, that stalls impulse reaction. Anytime something is being shoved down our throats like it needs to be done Yesterday, alarm bells should be ringing.

 

[Setarcos]

As I said before, if you want to make moral; appeals, feel free to demonstrate objective moral values. Or keep hiding, like you did when i challenged your little video.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As I said before, if you want to make moral; appeals, feel free to demonstrate objective moral values. Or keep hiding, like you did when i challenged your little video.

The Tom Woods video? I believe I answered your question on that video. Why would I hide from answering whether he authored a book? However, if you want to make assertions, please feel free to back up your assertions without lying. That usually helps in a discussion.

 

[Setarcos]

Ken:

~5:00

'it would me morally wrong..'

Before that claim can stand, it must be demonstrated that objective moral values exist and that stopping someone from doing x is objectively immoral (if the moral values are subjective, then so are the rights, rendering the argument meaningless)

If you wish to appeal to morality, begin demonstrating the existence of objective moral values

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

See? ...

Appealing to consequence is not a logical fallacy, where the consequences can be demonstrated... for instance.. "Johnny if you jump off the roof, you're going to hit the ground hard and it's likely to result in your sustaining an injury..."

The fact is that Johnny's fall will likely result in an injury, due to the velocity generated by his mass being effected by the force of gravity, inevitably meeting the irrepressible mass of the earth below him...the force of which being greater than that which the structural means of his body can withstand.

Such is only fallacious where the argument merely appeals to consequences which are not plausible...

Again... this douchebag is DONE. She's an idiot and as such her input is simply not worthy of consideration.