Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

"We're Going to Go Out and Violate Rights"

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 10:58:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who gives people "rights" in the first place? You're an awful lot better at making vague emotionally charged political statements then you are at thinking up cases for them.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 10:59:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 10:58:26 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Who gives people "rights" in the first place? You're an awful lot better at making vague emotionally charged political statements then you are at thinking up cases for them.

Rights are inherent.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:00:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, if I'm going to be clearest, rights are agreed upon by human consensus, but THEN become inherent.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:11:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:00:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be clearest, rights are agreed upon by human consensus, but THEN become inherent.

The two types you refer to are mutually exclusive, if I'm not mistaken. I'm simply asking royal a question- why should I respect those rights?

Remember, we're talking about the person who somehow manages to be a communist (which by definition would involve the abolishment of private property), and yet defends a property right framework in which everyone should have absolute control over their belongings and have the right to use lethal force against those who steal. Which, to my knowledge, isn't a position advocated for by any philosopher.

So obviously I'm really interested to hear this explanation.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:15:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:00:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be clearest, rights are agreed upon by human consensus, but THEN become inherent.

Not really, at least IMO. Rights are vague and flexible assertions that can be ignored or reinterpreted to mean whatever the powers that be or the preponderance of public opinion declares them to mean - whenever it suits their respective causes.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 11:44:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:11:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/19/2013 11:00:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be clearest, rights are agreed upon by human consensus, but THEN become inherent.

The two types you refer to are mutually exclusive, if I'm not mistaken. I'm simply asking royal a question- why should I respect those rights?

Remember, we're talking about the person who somehow manages to be a communist (which by definition would involve the abolishment of private property), and yet defends a property right framework in which everyone should have absolute control over their belongings and have the right to use lethal force against those who steal. Which, to my knowledge, isn't a position advocated for by any philosopher.

So obviously I'm really interested to hear this explanation.

Even a rudimentary understanding of Ancom would let you know that private property (means of production) =\= personal property.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2013 2:58:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rights are inherent and can be understood simply through an exercise one of own's own reason (natural rights). Stop and Frisk is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. There's no probable cause here. And what do they find? Drugs and weapons. Two things which should be legal to own anyway.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2013 10:41:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 11:44:32 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/19/2013 11:11:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/19/2013 11:00:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, if I'm going to be clearest, rights are agreed upon by human consensus, but THEN become inherent.

The two types you refer to are mutually exclusive, if I'm not mistaken. I'm simply asking royal a question- why should I respect those rights?

Remember, we're talking about the person who somehow manages to be a communist (which by definition would involve the abolishment of private property), and yet defends a property right framework in which everyone should have absolute control over their belongings and have the right to use lethal force against those who steal. Which, to my knowledge, isn't a position advocated for by any philosopher.

So obviously I'm really interested to hear this explanation.

Even a rudimentary understanding of Ancom would let you know that private property (means of production) =\= personal property.

Right, sorry, I used the wrong term. But that's not what she subscribes to, as I detailed above.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."