Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rights

sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
If no one cares if I have it why call it a right.
If someone cares why is my right greater than his?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:50:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
That would require them to have it in the first place.

If no one cares if I have it why call it a right.
If someone cares why is my right greater than his?
Rights aren't derived from caring. It's your life, even if someone cares to make you a slave.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:00:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:50:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
That would require them to have it in the first place.


Thats why I said its impossible its a contradiction.
If no one cares if I have it why call it a right.
If someone cares why is my right greater than his?
Rights aren't derived from caring. It's your life, even if someone cares to make you a slave.

That doesn't explain why my right to life comes before his right to a slave.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:18:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rights only go so far as your ability to execute them. There are those who have the power to completely enslave you. Most of the rights you have are actually privileges.

That said, those who have tried to enslave others have always faced the problem of rebellion. If you have rights, it is because the government realizes that making certain things illegal is a threat to its own stability.

The reason we are as "free" as we are now has to do with the fact that if we weren't, people would revolt.

Slavery will never die though. You will always be a slave to society.. To the economy.. To something. If there is one benefit though about living in today's world, there isn't so much violent coercion going on. The powers that be have developed new ways to keep you down. Poverty, addiction, and other forms of psychological warfare.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:33:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:18:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Rights only go so far as your ability to execute them. There are those who have the power to completely enslave you. Most of the rights you have are actually privileges.


That said, those who have tried to enslave others have always faced the problem of rebellion. If you have rights, it is because the government realizes that making certain things illegal is a threat to its own stability.

The reason we are as "free" as we are now has to do with the fact that if we weren't, people would revolt.

Slavery will never die though. You will always be a slave to society.. To the economy.. To something. If there is one benefit though about living in today's world, there isn't so much violent coercion going on. The powers that be have developed new ways to keep you down. Poverty, addiction, and other forms of psychological warfare.

You make a valid point and its probably true, but usually when people speak of rights its a moral issue not a practical one.

The slaves in usa were not freed because they revolted rather because there were others who stuck up for them.
peta and international human rights agency(if you can call it that) is not because they are trying to stop revolts from happening rather its based on what people think is the moraly correct way life should be. that is the question here, are those rights real. not do they have a practical purpose.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:47:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:00:40 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:50:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
That would require them to have it in the first place.


Thats why I said its impossible its a contradiction.
No, merely your version of them is. You see, the statement "Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's (right) is false-- it wasn't their right, it's yours.

If no one cares if I have it why call it a right.
If someone cares why is my right greater than his?
Rights aren't derived from caring. It's your life, even if someone cares to make you a slave.

That doesn't explain why my right to life comes before his right to a slave.
Everyone can have a right to themselves without contradiction, it's impossible for everyone to have a right to a slave without contradiction. Noncontradictory views of rights automatically have precedence over contradictory ones.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 11:58:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:47:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:00:40 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:50:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
That would require them to have it in the first place.


Thats why I said its impossible its a contradiction.
No, merely your version of them is. You see, the statement "Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's (right) is false-- it wasn't their right, it's yours.

Really wear did I get it from. You appear to have a presupposition.
Do you mind letting me in on it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 12:07:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:58:01 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:47:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:00:40 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:50:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
That would require them to have it in the first place.


Thats why I said its impossible its a contradiction.
No, merely your version of them is. You see, the statement "Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's (right) is false-- it wasn't their right, it's yours.

Really wear did I get it from. You appear to have a presupposition.
Do you mind letting me in on it.

Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life.

The meaning of the reciprocity clause is that when you violate the rights of another, all your rights are gone.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 12:12:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 12:09:57 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
Rights mean nothing if they can be taken away at the signing of a bill.

They can't be, however, they can be violated thereby.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 12:15:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 12:07:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:58:01 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:47:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:00:40 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:50:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
That would require them to have it in the first place.


Thats why I said its impossible its a contradiction.
No, merely your version of them is. You see, the statement "Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's (right) is false-- it wasn't their right, it's yours.

Really wear did I get it from. You appear to have a presupposition.
Do you mind letting me in on it.


Man's mind is the source of all valuation,

I think imagination fits better.

and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life.

The meaning of the reciprocity clause is that when you violate the rights of another, all your rights are gone.

You are creating a practical reason why the system of rights is beneficial.

If someone decides that his race is more advanced and supreme and therefor its beneficial to wipe out all others so they evolve better, than obviously you recognize he has the rights to protect his race from all the bad dna and destroy all others.
That is how you defined it only I brought a different case where something else might be the more practical thing to call rights. To protect what he values most, his superior race.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 12:47:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 12:15:15 AM, sal wrote:
I think imagination fits better.
This statement doesn't appear to mean anything.

You are creating a practical reason why the system of rights is beneficial.

I am describing a practical reason to respect one's rights, by describing what the rights are (proper social limits) and why they are proper. The rights are already there, you don't choose to turn them on, you just respect them or don't.


If someone decides that his race is more advanced and supreme and therefor its beneficial to wipe out all others so they evolve better, than obviously you recognize he has the rights to protect his race from all the bad dna and destroy all others.
Obviously not. That has no logical relation to anything I said.

That is how you defined it only I brought a different case where something else might be the more practical thing to call rights. To protect what he values most, his superior race.
If he values his race, he'd be spending all his time breeding, not "protecting from bad dna" (superior races are superior, they cannot be harmed by their inferior, thus they need no protection. To "Protect one's race" hereis to admit that one's racism is false.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:00:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?
Why not have them?

If you have a feasible alternative, please, enlighten us.
turn down for h'what
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 5:04:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:45:57 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

I agree rights are technically impossible.
Any time I have a right to something I'm taking away someone else's.
I have a right to free speech. How is that taking away someone else's right to free speech?
If no one cares if I have it why call it a right.
I care for your rights.
If someone cares why is my right greater than his?
False premise
turn down for h'what
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 6:39:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:33:30 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:18:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Rights only go so far as your ability to execute them. There are those who have the power to completely enslave you. Most of the rights you have are actually privileges.


That said, those who have tried to enslave others have always faced the problem of rebellion. If you have rights, it is because the government realizes that making certain things illegal is a threat to its own stability.

The reason we are as "free" as we are now has to do with the fact that if we weren't, people would revolt.

Slavery will never die though. You will always be a slave to society.. To the economy.. To something. If there is one benefit though about living in today's world, there isn't so much violent coercion going on. The powers that be have developed new ways to keep you down. Poverty, addiction, and other forms of psychological warfare.

You make a valid point and its probably true, but usually when people speak of rights its a moral issue not a practical one.

The slaves in usa were not freed because they revolted rather because there were others who stuck up for them.
peta and international human rights agency(if you can call it that) is not because they are trying to stop revolts from happening rather its based on what people think is the moraly correct way life should be. that is the question here, are those rights real. not do they have a practical purpose.

Well, morality is an entirely different subject all together. I consider rights to be a moral issue, the difference is that I am a moral realist/naturalist. My idea of morality is a bit different than anothers, even if we arrive at the same conclusions.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 6:55:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

Opinion: Rights are necessary for Order to maintain balance. If a balanced Order is your preference in this life... Then rights are indeed necessary within the system you choose to be a part of.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:06:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 11:18:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Rights only go so far as your ability to execute them. There are those who have the power to completely enslave you. Most of the rights you have are actually privileges.

My definition of "privilege" includes a balancing responsibility to offset it. IOWs I don't view privileges as independent concepts in their own right. At 16 years of age people get the privilege of being able to drive, offset by the responsibility of safe driving (and succombing to the rules of the road).

"Those who have the power..."

Well that's all it ever comes down to, isn't it? Nobody does anything more than they have to, and those who do are only taking indirect routes proven to help themselves.

That said, those who have tried to enslave others have always faced the problem of rebellion. If you have rights, it is because the government realizes that making certain things illegal is a threat to its own stability.

The reason we are as "free" as we are now has to do with the fact that if we weren't, people would revolt.

Slavery will never die though. You will always be a slave to society.. To the economy.. To something. If there is one benefit though about living in today's world, there isn't so much violent coercion going on. The powers that be have developed new ways to keep you down. Poverty, addiction, and other forms of psychological warfare.

They've learned from things like the French Revolution, yes. You attempt to be a realist, alfonzo, by refusing to ignore our problems but also refusing to ignore that they aren't likely to go away. The problem with this is that change always does end up coming sooner or later.

Change will be coming, and I can guarantee that. Our scientific literature is starting to burst at the seems with the problems we are causing and we will have to face them eventually. We are a terminally-ill patient with cancer.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:10:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:00:00 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?
Why not have them?

If you have a feasible alternative, please, enlighten us.

Let's get rid of rights altogether. Rights are interesting in that there's nobody, short of God (who has yet to come down and direct us on the subject), who can properly bestow a single one of them on us. Our society is established and it is protected by brute force. All our rights stem from those two facts, and all the civil rights that protect citizens are merely ways to fight back against the rights of the establishment.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:11:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 5:05:17 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
and I'm under the impression that sal is just one of Rob's accounts

I'll try and make it less obvious
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:12:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 6:39:20 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:33:30 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/31/2011 11:18:28 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Rights only go so far as your ability to execute them. There are those who have the power to completely enslave you. Most of the rights you have are actually privileges.


That said, those who have tried to enslave others have always faced the problem of rebellion. If you have rights, it is because the government realizes that making certain things illegal is a threat to its own stability.

The reason we are as "free" as we are now has to do with the fact that if we weren't, people would revolt.

Slavery will never die though. You will always be a slave to society.. To the economy.. To something. If there is one benefit though about living in today's world, there isn't so much violent coercion going on. The powers that be have developed new ways to keep you down. Poverty, addiction, and other forms of psychological warfare.

You make a valid point and its probably true, but usually when people speak of rights its a moral issue not a practical one.

The slaves in usa were not freed because they revolted rather because there were others who stuck up for them.
peta and international human rights agency(if you can call it that) is not because they are trying to stop revolts from happening rather its based on what people think is the moraly correct way life should be. that is the question here, are those rights real. not do they have a practical purpose.

Well, morality is an entirely different subject all together. I consider rights to be a moral issue, the difference is that I am a moral realist/naturalist. My idea of morality is a bit different than anothers, even if we arrive at the same conclusions.

Yes you do have your "own" way of addressing morality. You come to some adequate conclusions but your methods are beyond explanation.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:14:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 12:12:56 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/1/2011 12:09:57 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
Rights mean nothing if they can be taken away at the signing of a bill.

They can't be, however, they can be violated thereby.

When the mighty decide they need all their rights back, they will take them.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:18:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 6:55:31 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?

Opinion: Rights are necessary for Order to maintain balance. If a balanced Order is your preference in this life... Then rights are indeed necessary within the system you choose to be a part of.

I believe that is an assumption that few have bothered to test. This whole "can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" routine is getting tiresome, but I guess I shouldn't expect you to have a free mind from the powers that be, since you've never had the 'right' of independence. Asking utterly dependent people to think independently is foolish. But I'll keep trying, because we have some time left before our cancerous practices destroy ourselves.
Rob
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 11:19:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 10:06:25 AM, Lasagna wrote:
They've learned from things like the French Revolution, yes. You attempt to be a realist, alfonzo, by refusing to ignore our problems but also refusing to ignore that they aren't likely to go away. The problem with this is that change always does end up coming sooner or later.

Change will be coming, and I can guarantee that. Our scientific literature is starting to burst at the seems with the problems we are causing and we will have to face them eventually. We are a terminally-ill patient with cancer.

Change is a constant, but there is no guarantee that things will get better. Always sacrificing one freedom to gain another.

If the technological singularity happens as expected though, and human augmentation becomes even more pronounced and intimate than it already is, there is a good chance things will get better. Provided we don't inadvertently kill ourselves off.

At 8/1/2011 10:12:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/1/2011 6:39:20 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Well, morality is an entirely different subject all together. I consider rights to be a moral issue, the difference is that I am a moral realist/naturalist. My idea of morality is a bit different than anothers, even if we arrive at the same conclusions.

Yes you do have your "own" way of addressing morality. You come to some adequate conclusions but your methods are beyond explanation.

I think I can explain it in two words. Game Theory.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:02:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 10:10:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:00:00 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?
Why not have them?

If you have a feasible alternative, please, enlighten us.

Let's get rid of rights altogether.
Rights are interesting in that there's nobody, short of God (who has yet to come down and direct us on the subject), who can properly bestow a single one of them on us. Our society is established and it is protected by brute force. All our rights stem from those two facts, and all the civil rights that protect citizens are merely ways to fight back against the rights of the establishment.

B #1) That is not an alternative. You should know without these endowed "rights" there is no means of rival to reason in the society.

B #2) The endowed rights are enforced by the People collectively, albeit they are not collective rights

B #3) Rights of the establishment? That's a joke, hardy har har.

You're starting to sound more like an authoritarian each and everyday, Rob :P
turn down for h'what
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:31:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 11:19:00 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 8/1/2011 10:06:25 AM, Lasagna wrote:
They've learned from things like the French Revolution, yes. You attempt to be a realist, alfonzo, by refusing to ignore our problems but also refusing to ignore that they aren't likely to go away. The problem with this is that change always does end up coming sooner or later.

Change will be coming, and I can guarantee that. Our scientific literature is starting to burst at the seems with the problems we are causing and we will have to face them eventually. We are a terminally-ill patient with cancer.

Change is a constant, but there is no guarantee that things will get better. Always sacrificing one freedom to gain another.

If the technological singularity happens as expected though, and human augmentation becomes even more pronounced and intimate than it already is, there is a good chance things will get better. Provided we don't inadvertently kill ourselves off.


At 8/1/2011 10:12:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/1/2011 6:39:20 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Well, morality is an entirely different subject all together. I consider rights to be a moral issue, the difference is that I am a moral realist/naturalist. My idea of morality is a bit different than anothers, even if we arrive at the same conclusions.

Yes you do have your "own" way of addressing morality. You come to some adequate conclusions but your methods are beyond explanation.

I think I can explain it in two words. Game Theory.

I had two words to describe it, but they weren't "game" and "theory..."

LOL J/K I couldn't resist that one
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 3:34:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 3:02:20 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/1/2011 10:10:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/1/2011 5:00:00 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:37:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Why have them?
Why not have them?

If you have a feasible alternative, please, enlighten us.

Let's get rid of rights altogether.
Rights are interesting in that there's nobody, short of God (who has yet to come down and direct us on the subject), who can properly bestow a single one of them on us. Our society is established and it is protected by brute force. All our rights stem from those two facts, and all the civil rights that protect citizens are merely ways to fight back against the rights of the establishment.

B #1) That is not an alternative. You should know without these endowed "rights" there is no means of rival to reason in the society.

My alternative is to abolish rights of every kind.

B #2) The endowed rights are enforced by the People collectively, albeit they are not collective rights

They are enforced by officers in uniform, not the People.

B #3) Rights of the establishment? That's a joke, hardy har har.

Yes the establishment endows itself with the right to tell people who can enter/leave the country and so forth.

You're starting to sound more like an authoritarian each and everyday, Rob :P

I'm the most anti-authoritarian person on this site...
Rob
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 7:49:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 12:47:22 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/1/2011 12:15:15 AM, sal wrote:
I think imagination fits better.
This statement doesn't appear to mean anything.


You are creating a practical reason why the system of rights is beneficial.

I am describing a practical reason to respect one's rights, by describing what the rights are (proper social limits) and why they are proper. The rights are already there, you don't choose to turn them on, you just respect them or don't.

Why do you have a right to anything?
Lets start with your property.
You bought something from someone else.
What right did he have to it?
He bought it from someone else ......

Life? Just because you are born you have a right to it? based on what?
In order to respect something you have to have it.
You haven't yet given a coherent reason that you have a right to anything.