|
Anonymous
|
for silversoul7
#2309452 - 02/06/04 05:20 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I guess I should've said I disagree with the founding fathers. Not that I don't appreciate what they did--I just disagree with the premise of Natural Rights, as I have explained before. But to keep the thread on-topic, I will not go any further into that.
could you explain?
what are rights?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309457 - 02/06/04 05:22 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
According to dictionary.com:
Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Now, I happen to disagree with the nature part of the equation. Nature doesn't owe anyone shit. That answer your question?
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
no it doesn't. your definition, fetched from the dictionary and then editted reads:
"Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition"
note the word due, not granted. this definition does not exclude the idea of natural rights. it would actually seem to imply it...
are rights nothing more than something granted by government?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309503 - 02/06/04 05:36 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ok, so perhaps I should not have used the word granted. My point is that there is no universal set of rights. There is no natural law governing which rights people have, and which ones they don't. It's nice to think that there are, but I see no evidence of this. Our concept of what our rights are is culturally determined, as are most of our morals.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
do different people have the same rights?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309701 - 02/06/04 06:29 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I guess I'm not so sure I agree with the idea of rights. I think people just have different expectations of what is due to them, and none of them is necessarily more right than the others.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
rights aren't something due to you. they are innate. if you were the only person alive, you would still have liberty. you would have pure, unrestrained, absolute liberty. you don't need anyone to give it to you. liberty is nothing more than a lack of restriction on behavior. rights cannot be granted to you by any government... force cannot enable you to do anything, it can only prevent you from doing things.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309740 - 02/06/04 06:40 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well if rights are the same as unrestrained liberty, then I have the right to do anything, including initiating force upon others. It is therefore the duty of government to take away certain rights(the right to kill, the right to steal, etc.).
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
by killing or stealing, you are restraining liberty.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309791 - 02/06/04 06:59 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So?
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309804 - 02/06/04 07:01 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
that which is not already right by nature cannot be made right by an act of legislation. rights are not granted by the law, though they should be protected by it. if rights are nothing more than something granted to you by the most physically powerful human individual (or group) in your sphere of existance, they are really nothing at all.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309807 - 02/06/04 07:02 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I don't see you answering my simple, one-word question.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
give me a second, alright?
|
Anonymous
|
|
liberty is the absence of external restraint on freedom to act. when you initiate force against someone, you have imposed a restraint on their freedom to act. therefore, the initiation of force is not included in liberty... because while liberty is the absence of external restraint on freedom to act, force is exactly that.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309831 - 02/06/04 07:11 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
liberty is the absence of external restraint on freedom to act. when you initiate force against someone, you have imposed a restraint on their freedom to act. therefore, the initiation of force is not included in liberty
I don't follow. All your initial claim seems to indicate is that sometimes one person's liberty can infringe upon another's.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309840 - 02/06/04 07:14 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think mushmaster is confusing rights with abilities.
If a door is locked, I have the ability to kick it in, but I do not have the right.
|
Anonymous
|
|
it can't. a lack of external restraint on behavior cannot at the same time be an external restraint on behavior.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: DoctorJ]
#2309852 - 02/06/04 07:17 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think mushmaster is confusing rights with abilities. do you mean silversoul? If a door is locked, I have the ability to kick it in, but I do not have the right. if it's your door, you do, because you are not imposing a restraint on another person's freedom of action. if it's not your door, you do not have the liberty to kick it in, because to do so would be a restraint on a person's freedom of action.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: ]
#2309863 - 02/06/04 07:21 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
sounds like etheral concepts to me. not much to do with nature.
the truth is that, by nature, I have the ability to do almost anything. I can rape, rob, pillage and steal. There is nothing natural restricting me from doing these things. these activities are not against the laws of physics. Thats why society had to invent government, and government had to invent rights and restrictions.
I agree with the founding fathers in principle, but principle is not reality, unfortunately.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for silversoul7 [Re: DoctorJ]
#2309881 - 02/06/04 07:27 PM (20 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the truth is that, by nature, I have the ability to do almost anything. I can rape, rob, pillage and steal. There is nothing natural restricting me from doing these things. these activities are not against the laws of physics.
this is why we're talking about natural rights, not natural abilities.
Thats why society had to invent government, and government had to invent rights and restrictions.
i'm sure you're not so naive as to think that government was invented to secure people's rights.
|
|