NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a thread a couple days ago that made me think about all the things that people claim a 'right' to have. Job security was the particular 'right', but people also claim to have a right to health care, food, housing, to name a few. What is the difference between these 'rights' and the rights that are naturally possessed by all people?

My claim is that natural rights exist simultaneously between all people and and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

The claim that something is a right makes it universally possessed by people. That's fine, as far as it goes, but the exercise of a false right obligates other people to ensure that it is granted. If we claim that medical care, for example, is a right, we have also decided to obligate some portion of our population to give up some portion of their property to pay for another's care. If we applied this same standard to free travel, it would require a round trip ticket and a hotel room every time I wanted to travel.

My complaint, here, isn't with the government provision of some services. But when we start to claim that nice-to-have things are natural rights, the real meaning of those natural rights is lost.

You'll get no argument from me. Now the only problem is to convince the politicians to stop trying to buy votes in bulk with dilutive entitlements for the social dependents.
A much larger task than identifying the problem.

There was a thread a couple days ago that made me think about all the things that people claim a 'right' to have. Job security was the particular 'right', but people also claim to have a right to health care, food, housing, to name a few. What is the difference between these 'rights' and the rights that are naturally possessed by all people?

My claim is that natural rights exist simultaneously between all people and and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

The claim that something is a right makes it universally possessed by people. That's fine, as far as it goes, but the exercise of a false right obligates other people to ensure that it is granted. If we claim that medical care, for example, is a right, we have also decided to obligate some portion of our population to give up some portion of their property to pay for another's care. If we applied this same standard to free travel, it would require a round trip ticket and a hotel room every time I wanted to travel.

My complaint, here, isn't with the government provision of some services. But when we start to claim that nice-to-have things are natural rights, the real meaning of those natural rights is lost.

It's my right to avoid debate because i can't be arsed and make a pokey tongue smiley at this post. MY NATURAL INHERENT RIGHT.

:p

yeah.. I've never understood why people claim that ownership of property is a right especially when there's only a finite amount..

If we applied this same standard to free travel, it would require a round trip ticket and a hotel room every time I wanted to travel.

not really, because the claim of a right to medical care isn't expressed in terms that allow a person to have all the plastic surgery they want for free.

but even still, so what? what exactly would be wrong with having people have a right to do a certain amount of travelling for free and the right to have a place to stay when they got there? the fact that the current system of hotel and transportation ownership wouldn't like it doesn't count as an answer.

I agree completely. When the law was passed banning smoking in pubs in UK, supporters claimed the law infringed their right to be free of smoke:headbang: (not once mentioning the right to private property).

Positive rights have gone so far in UK that Blair is forced to talk about "rights and responsibilities". Real rights do not have responsibilties and parasitic scroungers are a symptom caused by losing sight of this fact.

I consider the possession of private property to be a bogus right, in particular 'ownership' of land and resources.

Your concept of natural rights is based on your ideology, and repugnant to me. Your ideology is not universal, and there are no rights but what we afford ourselves.

what exactly would be wrong with having people have a right to do a certain amount of travelling for free and the right to have a place to stay when they got there? the fact that the current system of hotel and transportation ownership wouldn't like it doesn't count as an answer.

Free lunches do not exist, providing for that right would infinge on the property rights of many others. As the extent of travel everyone is entitled to would be arbitarily decided by somebody in government people's rights would change depending on the decision. Rights are not granted, they exist. If GDP is not high enough to pay for such a system, their rights would be infringed by who?

In your opinion free travel may be desireable, but it is not a right.

not really, because the claim of a right to medical care isn't expressed in terms that allow a person to have all the plastic surgery they want for free.

but even still, so what? what exactly would be wrong with having people have a right to do a certain amount of travelling for free and the right to have a place to stay when they got there? the fact that the current system of hotel and transportation ownership wouldn't like it doesn't count as an answer.
I guess my answer is still a question. What 'right' do I have to demand the property of another be given to me? If I were to decide I'd like a nice meal and didn't want to pay, wouldn't that be the same as demanding that you pay for my trip to Sheboygan? In a lot of places that would be called theft.

I consider the possession of private property to be a bogus right, in particular 'ownership' of land and resources.

Your concept of natural rights is based on your ideology, and repugnant to me. Your ideology is not universal, and there are no rights but what we afford ourselves.
Guess you're not a big supporter of Locke. What about free speech? Isn't that a universal right? I can exercise that right without obligating others.

property rights, as far as I am concerned, are lesser to the right to life. The right to life includes adequate healthcare.

So being free to go to seek healthcare should definitely be more of a right than property rights. Therefore, while it doesn't Have to be free, it does have to be available and because property rights could naturally be lesser to that of healthcare, then obviously healthcare can be paid for through that.

Guess you're not a big supporter of Locke. What about free speech? Isn't that a universal right? I can exercise that right without obligating others.

And I guess that's why everybody has that right. Except of course, for people living under dictatorships and the like.

Free lunches do not exist, providing for that right would infinge on the property rights of many others.

what property rights? perhaps the 'real' property rights actually hold that people do have a right to a place to stay wherever they travel.

Rights are not granted, they exist.

where? how? in what form?

Guess you're not a big supporter of Locke. What about free speech? Isn't that a universal right? I can exercise that right without obligating others.
The biggest problem I have with even discussing this, is that in reality, there are no universal rights. Not in practice. Nor do I ever foresee us being able to, as a human race, agree on which rights are most important. For example, I consider the right to health care as an extension of the right to life, which in my mind is the primary right. I feel this right trumps any right to private property. You would absolutely disagree. The problem is neither one of us is going to be right in the sense of getting what we want. Neither one of can be proven right ideologically either, because we're working from different belief systems.

As to your question, freedom of speech is a right I consider to be fundamental, yes. Is it universal? Not in practice, and not ideologically. So no.

Your ideology is not universal, and there are no rights but what we afford ourselves.

Just because not everyone does not agree with me does not change the fact I am right:)

If you believe private property to be a bogus right on what grounds would you object to me stealing your wage and TV if I wanted?

What 'right' do I have to demand the property of another be given to me?

if it doesn't 'rightfully' belong to them alone in the first place.

I guess my answer is still a question. What 'right' do I have to demand the property of another be given to me? If I were to decide I'd like a nice meal and didn't want to pay, wouldn't that be the same as demanding that you pay for my trip to Sheboygan? In a lot of places that would be called theft.
But the entire basis of your argument is that private property is a right. It only becomes a right when people make it so. Your people value private property, sometimes it seems above all else. My people don't. We can not fathom how your people truly believe they can 'own' land or resources. It just does not compute. Our two ways of thinking can not be reconciled, and neither one is universally, objectively correct or false.

if it doesn't 'rightfully' belong to them alone in the first place.

If they alone created the wealth/property then surely it does belong to them. Unless you believe that everyone has a claim on the life of everyone else of course.

Just because not everyone does not agree with me does not change the fact I am right:)

If you believe private property to be a bogus right on what grounds would you object to me stealing your wage and TV if I wanted?
I believe it to be a bogus right, but it is a legal right in my society. The legality of private property is what makes it a right...not some objective inherent status that causes it to exist on its own.

But the entire basis of your argument is that private property is a right. It only becomes a right when people make it so. Your people value private property, sometimes it seems above all else. My people don't. We can not fathom how your people truly believe they can 'own' land or resources. It just does not compute. Our two ways of thinking can not be reconciled, and neither one is universally, objectively correct or false.
What about a person's time or labor? Does a doctor have to provide his services to anyone, whether or not they can pay his price? Isn't his time his own property?

I believe it to be a bogus right, but it is a legal right in my society. The legality of private property is what makes it a right...not some objective inherent status that causes it to exist on its own.

And if we lived in a society without laws, you would have no objection on moral grounds?

what property rights? perhaps the 'real' property rights actually hold that people do have a right to a place to stay wherever they travel.

i should add that many cultures have in fact held something like that idea.

Just because not everyone does not agree with me does not change the fact I am right:)

If you believe private property to be a bogus right on what grounds would you object to me stealing your wage and TV if I wanted?

How could you steal if there wasn't any private property?

Anyway: Although you are right, I will be the one that is left :p oh the punning is so awful

If they alone created the wealth/property then surely it does belong to them. Unless you believe that everyone has a claim on the life of everyone else of course.
Let me give you a glimpse into my people's perspective on this.

There is no wealth or property that can be created alone.

Anything you 'create' has come first from the elements of the earth. Humans can use those resources, but claiming to have ownership is silly. An animal is not YOURS. It exists. It may be altered. But you can not own it. Perhaps you make something out of the animal. But you are not working alone. The animal itself, which is not owned by you, has allowed itself to be sacrificed in order to supply you with materials. You create something using those materials, but you are master only of your own work, not of the outcome.

Certain things were considered as 'belonging' to certain people. The tipis belonged to the women, and the clothes of the children belonged to her too. The clothes of the man belonged to him, regardless of who made them. But that ownership is not the same as what you consider ownership to be. We were, and still are a communal people. Goods were held in common. One person may have the oversight of them, but one person does not own them. They belong to everyone. But not land. Not resources. Those things belong to no one and can not be claimed.

The biggest problem I have with even discussing this, is that in reality, there are no universal rights. Not in practice. Nor do I ever foresee us being able to, as a human race, agree on which rights are most important. For example, I consider the right to health care as an extension of the right to life, which in my mind is the primary right. I feel this right trumps any right to private property. You would absolutely disagree. The problem is neither one of us is going to be right in the sense of getting what we want. Neither one of can be proven right ideologically either, because we're working from different belief systems.

As to your question, freedom of speech is a right I consider to be fundamental, yes. Is it universal? Not in practice, and not ideologically. So no.
So because a tyrant in Lower Slobbovia decides to crack down on some dissident newspapers, the rest of us do not enjoy any natural right to free speech? I'm not sure the 'not in practice' argument is good enough to cancel out the 'we all rate it' one.

How could you steal if there wasn't any private property?

replace "steal" with "pick up and carry away with me".

What about a person's time or labor? Does a doctor have to provide his services to anyone, whether or not they can pay his price? Isn't his time his own property?
Time is not property. Nor is labour. What a weird way to think about things. I don't understand how you could try to quantify something like time in order to attach a 'value' to it.

And if we lived in a society without laws, you would have no objection on moral grounds?

I think you're missing her point, (correct me if I'm wrong here...).

Sinuhue is arguing that the only rights that exist, are the ones that society grants through the mechanism of the state (or something to that effect.) Who says that there is a universal right for anything? If not everyone agrees, how can it be universal?

At any rate, if this isn't exactly Sin's point, it seems like it, and it's basically the way I look at it too.

And if we lived in a society without laws, you would have no objection on moral grounds?
There is no such thing as a society without laws. Perhaps not written laws, set up in a judicial system like we have now, but laws exist according to the beliefs of that particular society. In my mind there are no moral grounds that apply to private property.

Let me give you a glimpse into my people's perspective on this.

There is no wealth or property that can be created alone.

Anything you 'create' has come first from the elements of the earth. Humans can use those resources, but claiming to have ownership is silly. An animal is not YOURS. It exists. It may be altered. But you can not own it. Perhaps you make something out of the animal. But you are not working alone. The animal itself, which is not owned by you, has allowed itself to be sacrificed in order to supply you with materials. You create something using those materials, but you are master only of your own work, not of the outcome.

Certain things were considered as 'belonging' to certain people. The tipis belonged to the women, and the clothes of the children belonged to her too. The clothes of the man belonged to him, regardless of who made them. But that ownership is not the same as what you consider ownership to be. We were, and still are a communal people. Goods were held in common. One person may have the oversight of them, but one person does not own them. They belong to everyone. But not land. Not resources. Those things belong to no one and can not be claimed.

and what about intellectual property?

So because a tyrant in Lower Slobbovia decides to crack down on some dissident newspapers, the rest of us do not enjoy any natural right to free speech? Only if you're lucky enough to live in a society that has guaranteed you this right.

I'm not sure the 'not in practice' argument is good enough to cancel out the 'we all rate it' one.Mmm, I'm not saying a right can be cancelled out...just that there is no guarantee it will exist. I know that's confusing. I absolutely support the concept that there should be a set of rights guaranteed and put into practice for all humans. But I will likely always disagree with others as to what those rights are. This dissent among us is the root of what invalidates the concept of universality. We will never agree what rights we should all have.

and what about intellectual property?
Like....?

and what about intellectual property?

How can you own an idea?

and what about intellectual property?

If you give me an idea and I give you an idea, we are both richer.

and what about intellectual property?

it's on even shakier ground that physical property. ideas do not just materialize fully formed from the aether.

you know, "standing on the shoulders of giants" and all that.

I think you're missing her point, (correct me if I'm wrong here...).

Sinuhue is arguing that the only rights that exist, are the ones that society grants through the mechanism of the state (or something to that effect.) Who says that there is a universal right for anything? If not everyone agrees, how can it be universal?

At any rate, if this isn't exactly Sin's point, it seems like it, and it's basically the way I look at it too.
This is essentially my point.

The concept of rights is not an objective one that exists outside the minds of humans. The only way we can even say a right exists is when it has somehow been guaranteed by a society.

There is no such thing as a society without laws. Perhaps not written laws, set up in a judicial system like we have now, but laws exist according to the beliefs of that particular society. In my mind there are no moral grounds that apply to private property.

If the law was written according to my beliefs about property you would object in accordance with my beliefs then. If the law said "take what you want" you would not object. Do you have any moral beliefs or do you always go along with whatever the law/society tells you.

Time is not property. Nor is labour. What a weird way to think about things. I don't understand how you could try to quantify something like time in order to attach a 'value' to it.
Why not? It takes time to build something, so the product is worth more than the materials. It takes time to perform a service that requires no material at all. So isn't the time that a cook spends preparing a meal something that adds value to the meal? Surely he has made it more appetizing than it would have been as a pile of raw ingredients.

How can you own an idea?

If it is formed out of my mind, my own creation, then I own it. I invested time in creating the idea, nobody else did, how the hell do you claim that you should have a piece of it, when it is nothing to do with you?

This is essentially my point.

The concept of rights is not an objective one that exists outside the minds of humans. The only way we can even say a right exists is when it has somehow been guaranteed by a society.
Obviously, you are not an American. About 300 years ago, on our way across the Atlantic, God threw down a bunch of rights at us and ever since then we've been born with them. We don't have the right of free health care but we do have the right to bomb the hell out of you. It was accepted as a fairly even trade.

If the law was written according to my beliefs about property you would object in accordance with my beliefs then. Ah. Well, while I do not consider private property to be a fundamental right, I nonetheless exercise this right. However, I do not actually believe that because I have a piece of paper saying I own a piece of land, that somehow this really makes me the owner of land. In legal fact I am, but in natural fact, all I own is the right to claim that land as my own. A right that is actually meaningless outside of the bounds of this society....what I mean is, if this society ceased to exist, my ownership of that land would not exist. According to my beliefs, it can't anyway. It's a sleight of hand.

If the law said "take what you want" you would not object. Do you have any moral beliefs or do you always go along with whatever the law/society tells you. The law would not say take what you want, it would state that you can not claim ownership to anything. And we never took what we wanted without reciprocating. Reciprocity is not necessarily a form of payment. And in any case, no matter what you possess in this life, you are just borrowing it.

I of course have moral beliefs, and no I do not just go along with whatever society tells me BUT my beliefs are shaped by my society...which is not necessarily your society. I can not divest myself of my beliefs and therefore can not divest myself from my society. So perhaps in a way, I do go along with what my society says...just not in the way that you suggest...which is that regardless of who was in power, I would respect the laws. No. I respect the natural laws, which my people have interpreted, and formed a society around:)

If it is formed out of my mind, my own creation, then I own it. I invested time in creating the idea, nobody else did, how the hell do you claim that you should have a piece of it, when it is nothing to do with you?
Please give me an example of what you mean by intellectual property so I can answer your original question about it.

Obviously, you are not an American. About 300 years ago, on our way across the Atlantic, God threw down a bunch of rights at us and ever since then we've been born with them. We don't have the right of free health care but we do have the right to bomb the hell out of you. It was accepted as a fairly even trade.
Kehehehee...so if we get a REALLY powerful microscope, we can read these rights written into your genes? How do you implant those rights into your immigrant populations?

Intellectual property is the one of the most selfish things ever invented by the human race.

This is essentially my point.

The concept of rights is not an objective one that exists outside the minds of humans. The only way we can even say a right exists is when it has somehow been guaranteed by a society.
Which is a huge difference from the way I see rights. Of course, there are natural rights that belong to all people. I know that because I am certain we were all created equal. Thus, the Lower Slobbovians have the same rights as I. They just need to take back their rights from an unjust despot. I'll agree that isn't easy, but difficulty in exercising rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

Which is a huge difference from the way I see rights. Of course, there are natural rights that belong to all people. I know that because I am certain we were all created equal.

how does being created equal demonstrate the existence of universal natural rights?

Which is a huge difference from the way I see rights. Of course, there are natural rights that belong to all people. I know that because I am certain we were all created equal. Thus, the Lower Slobbovians have the same rights as I. They just need to take back their rights from an unjust despot. I'll agree that isn't easy, but difficulty in exercising rights doesn't mean they don't exist.
I understand what you mean...and I hope you understand the distinction that I am making, which does not necessarily negate there being any rights...but again, you speak of private property as being some sort of right. I can not reoncile myself with this concept. You say it exists, and I say it does not...how can either of us prove it if there does not exist an objective set of rights?

Ah. Well, while I do not consider private property to be a fundamental right, I nonetheless exercise this right.

surely that is hypocritical. If I was ill and denied healthcare I would not go to the European Court of Human Rights (or whatever the Canadian equivalent) and demand healthcare on the basis of a right I do not believe in. Society and the law says that I am intitled to it, but that does not mean I should live by their beliefs.

Kehehehee...so if we get a REALLY powerful microscope, we can read these rights written into your genes? How do you implant those rights into your immigrant populations?
We usually just beat it into them with a particular book.

If it is formed out of my mind, my own creation, then I own it. I invested time in creating the idea, nobody else did, how the hell do you claim that you should have a piece of it, when it is nothing to do with you?

But the only way you can 'keep' it is you never tell it to anyone else, or show it. Ideas are useless unless you share them. But once you give the idea to someone else, you still have it. Ideas simply can not be controlled the way physical artifacts can.

This dissent among us is the root of what invalidates the concept of universality.

well, it might just be the case that some of us are wrong, and there really is a set of universal rights written into, um, the fabric of the unverse or something. of course, then we are stuck with the problem of demonstrating both their existence and figuring out which of the competing sets is the real one.

You say it exists, and I say it does not...how can either of us prove it if there does not exist an objective set of rights?

With reasoned argument. That would obviously be very lengthy process and humans are fallible but it would mean we might get closer to the actual truth.

Intellectual property is the one of the most selfish things ever invented by the human race.

I tend to disagree. If you believe in benefitting from the fruits of your labours, then anyone who makes a living through any creative process should have the right to benefit from that labour. I would hardly qualify it as selfish. If you worked somewhere for an agreed wage, and then at the end of the day, you didn't have a right to keep those wages... well I'm sure you see where I'm getting at.

i don't believe in natural rights, but i think its often better for civil society if we pretend there are. without universal human right we run the risk of loosing civil liberty to the whims of the moment in the body politic, but just because its a good idea doesn't make it true.

But once you give the idea to someone else, you still have it. Ideas simply can not be controlled the way physical artifacts can.

Agreed, but as it is mine I (TRY TO)choose who to give it to and dictate how they may use it. DVD's for instance prohibit the lending, copying etc of them.

surely that is hypocritical. No, it isn't. The right I have been given by this society to own land simply doesn't exist. I am required to have the piece of paper denoting ownership, but I don't actually believe that I can claim a piece of land as my personal property. It isn't hypocrisy...it's kind of a silly game I'm forced to play.

If I was ill and denied healthcare I would not go to the European Court of Human Rights (or whatever the Canadian equivalent) and demand healthcare on the basis of a right I do not believe in. Society and the law says that I am intitled to it, but that does not mean I should live by their beliefs.
I see what you are saying...but to a certain extent one must live within the boundaries of the society they find themselves in. I do not have to give up all private property simply because I do not recognise it as a right. My people did not live with nothing. But the concept that I have ownership over the things I possess is not one I can reconcile myself with. Many aboriginal people have this...confusion I guess. Material things are not that important to us, because who can own a thing? We need material goods for certain tasks in our life, but that doesn't mean they belong to us in the sense that you believe they do.

This society has declared that one can own land. My people deny this possibility, but we are forced to work within that framework to some extent in order to secure land for our use. Our use. Not ownership. The concepts simply do not line up...they can not be compared as opposites...it's not that simple. What exists as a concept in your system of beliefs is simply absent in ours.

I tend to disagree. If you believe in benefitting from the fruits of your labours, then anyone who makes a living through any creative process should have the right to benefit from that labour. I would hardly qualify it as selfish. If you worked somewhere for an agreed wage, and then at the end of the day, you didn't have a right to keep those wages... well I'm sure you see where I'm getting at.

Wanting to profit from your own labours is somewhat selfish (as you are acting to benefit yourself above other) but that does not make it bad. Rational self-interest (ethical egoism) is perfectly natural.

well, it might just be the case that some of us are wrong, and there really is a set of universal rights written into, um, the fabric of the unverse or something. of course, then we are stuck with the problem of demonstrating both their existence and figuring out which of the competing sets is the real one.
My people are bound by nature's law. But we have no way of proving we are right in our interpretations. Nor is there a drive to do so...why would we prove what simply is? But people won't do what they don't see proven necessary. It's not a problem we can really solve. Nor is it moral relativism, which is how this might sound. We know what the laws are and are baffled as to why others can't see them. But who is to say we are right, in the end.

With reasoned argument. That would obviously be very lengthy process and humans are fallible but it would mean we might get closer to the actual truth.
We could perhaps come to a consensus. But we could never prove to one another the existence of a right. We could only agree to make something a right.

My people are bound by nature's law. But we have no way of proving we are right in our interpretations. Nor is there a drive to do so...why would we prove what simply is? But people won't do what they don't see proven necessary. It's not a problem we can really solve. Nor is it moral relativism, which is how this might sound. We know what the laws are and are baffled as to why others can't see them. But who is to say we are right, in the end.

Blame it on the agricultural revolution and Eurasian migration, 2 essential differences between Europe and pre-Columbian America. Why would you need the idea of 'ownership' when there's a natural balance, and people live in communal groups. Large scale agriculture was (with the exception of Central America?) relatively unknown, so the European concept that 'This piece of land is mine' never evolved. When most of society is agrarian, and there is the occasional threat of being displaced from your means of survival, it evolves a healthy (and I use that term loosely) sense of property.

But we could never prove to one another the existence of a right.

I don't see why not, in theory. Ayn Rand tried to prove an awful lot based on the axiom "existance exists" and belief therefore in the primacy of existance over consciousness. i do not know whether she is right, but she thought she was. I agree that humans will never forseeably come to a consensus on the issue. Saying to a theist "you could be wrong, I do not agree" does not mean the debate should end and then agree any popular interpretation is OK.

I don't see why not, in theory. Ayn Rand tried to prove an awful lot based on the axiom "existance exists" and belief therefore in the primacy of existance over consciousness. i do not know whether she is right, but she thought she was. I agree that humans will never forseeably come to a consensus on the issue. Saying to a theist "you could be wrong, I do not agree" does not mean the debate should end and then agree any popular interpretation is OK.
The debate will rage on forever, precisely because there is no real way to prove anyone right. Even if the entire world came to a consensus, 'rights' would not magically appear. They would simply be expressed.

When most of society is agrarian, and there is the occasional threat of being displaced from your means of survival, it evolves a healthy (and I use that term loosely) sense of property.

If natural property rights do exist (and I accept they might not) society having a "sense" of them is completely irrelevant to their existance as consciousness perceives existance. Obviously if property rights do exist purely as society's creation then they will form outof society's beliefs/thinking.

Even if the entire world came to a consensus, 'rights' would not magically appear. They would simply be expressed.
If the consensus was that natural rights eg free speech exist. Then they would just be endorsed, they already exist.

I understand what you mean...and I hope you understand the distinction that I am making, which does not necessarily negate there being any rights...but again, you speak of private property as being some sort of right. I can not reoncile myself with this concept. You say it exists, and I say it does not...how can either of us prove it if there does not exist an objective set of rights?
I've tried to stay away from using private property as an example. Still, one does have to wonder where the ownership of one's own time and effort lies.

If you read any of Locke's essays, you'll find he begins with the idea that each of us have exclusive right to our own body and its actions. Is that something you agree with?

I've tried to stay away from using private property as an example. Still, one does have to wonder where the ownership of one's own time and effort lies.

If you read any of Locke's essays, you'll find he begins with the idea that each of us have exclusive right to our own body and its actions. Is that something you agree with?
What Locke says, in summary, is you have the right to sit on your ass somewhere and talk to yourself. Life, liberty, and property.

Still, one does have to wonder where the ownership of one's own time and effort lies.

and why must they be the sort of thing that can be owned?

If you read any of Locke's essays, you'll find he begins with the idea that each of us have exclusive right to our own body and its actions.

and therefore it is perfectly right to stop providing for your child should you feel like it?

What Locke says, in summary, is you have the right to sit on your ass somewhere and talk to yourself. Life, liberty, and property.
Only to people with shallow minds. But do you disagree with my statement about owning our bodies and their actions?

Only to people with shallow minds. But do you disagree with my statement about owning our bodies and their actions?
It's not that I disagree with the concept, and will now proceed to offer up an alternative...it is instead that this concept simply makes no sense to me at all. How can you own your body? What are you laying claim to exactly? Your body is. It exists, and you have a certain amount of control over it, but it isn't yours. It doesn't belong to you, or to someone else. It isn't something that can be owned, just as animals can't be owned, and land can't be owned, and rivers can't be owned. I can't adequately express how odd and difficult it is to even fathom what you are actually thinking of when you talk about owning your body.

...
and therefore it is perfectly right to stop providing for your child should you feel like it?
No, it is not okay. It is never okay to cause harm, but you are the owner of your body and you are responsible for your actions.

No, it is not okay. It is never okay to cause harm, but you are the owner of your body and you are responsible for your actions.

and thus you demonstrate that you believe that people ought be forced to use their time and effort to prevent harm. might as well just accept a right to healthcare and be done with it.

It's not that I disagree with the concept, and will now proceed to offer up an alternative...it is instead that this concept simply makes no sense to me at all. How can you own your body? What are you laying claim to exactly? Your body is. It exists, and you have a certain amount of control over it, but it isn't yours. It doesn't belong to you, or to someone else. It isn't something that can be owned, just as animals can't be owned, and land can't be owned, and rivers can't be owned. I can't adequately express how odd and difficult it is to even fathom what you are actually thinking of when you talk about owning your body.
Well, we're even. I don't understand how one could conceive of an existence where one was not the sole owner, meaning possessor and controller, of one's self. Guess it's an impasse. I don't have another way to describe it.

and thus you demonstrate that you believe that people ought be forced to use their time and effort to prevent harm. might as well just accept a right to healthcare and be done with it.
That's not what I said. I said you are responsible if you do cause harm.

There was a thread a couple days ago that made me think about all the things that people claim a 'right' to have. Job security was the particular 'right', but people also claim to have a right to health care, food, housing, to name a few. What is the difference between these 'rights' and the rights that are naturally possessed by all people?
[...]
[W]hen we start to claim that nice-to-have things are natural rights, the real meaning of those natural rights is lost.

Health care, food and housing are "nice things to have"? I'd like to see you try to go without for a while! Everyone has a right to essentials. What is the point of society if not to ensure that its people at least remain alive?

You seem to claim that someone asserting the right to live is somehow infringeing on your rights, because your taxes will go towards funding health care, for instance. Your "right" not to part with any of your money is not an essential. The right of your fellow citizens to live, by contrast, is.

That's not what I said. I said you are responsible if you do cause harm.

define 'responsible'

and in the case of refusing to provide for your child, you aren't actively causing harm, just withholding support and passively allowing harm to occur.

Well, we're even. I don't understand how one could conceive of an existence where one was not the sole owner, meaning possessor and controller, of one's self. Guess it's an impasse. I don't have another way to describe it.
I can agree with you about controller, for the most part. But possessor...that can remain inexplicable between us:)

Health care, food and housing are "nice things to have"? I'd like to see you try to go without for a while! Everyone has a right to essentials. What is the point of society if not to ensure that its people at least remain alive?

You seem to claim that someone asserting the right to live is somehow infringeing on your rights, because your taxes will go towards funding health care, for instance. Your "right" not to part with any of your money is not an essential. The right of your fellow citizens to live, by contrast, is.
I simply claim that a 'right' is something that can be exercised without putting an obligation on another person. The right to live is certainly valid. But that right can't obligate another for support. Once we start down that path, we can find that we have a 'right' to education and if we don't have the money, the professors and university should just give it to us. But, maybe I also have the right to travel, as I've said before, that doesn't mean that I should be entitled to a free round trip ticket and lodging at my destination.

define 'responsible'

and in the case of refusing to provide for your child, you aren't actively causing harm, just withholding support and passively allowing harm to occur.
Didn't those Wisconsin schools teach definitions? How about accountable? If you perform this action, you will be accountable for its effects. I didn't say we were exempt from any personal responsiblity because we own our actions. Far from it, I, and only I, am responsible(accountable) for what I do. Can't use "The Devil made me do it" excuse.

I simply claim that a 'right' is something that can be exercised without putting an obligation on another person. The right to live is certainly valid. But that right can't obligate another for support. I'm just going to assume you are excepting pregnancy here:)

And do you seriously not believe there is a right to education?:confused:

I'm just going to assume you are excepting pregnancy here:)

And do you seriously not believe there is a right to education?:confused:
I think pregnancy would fall into one of those possessor/controller kind of responsibilties. You and your partner now bear the responsibility for your actions. But the pregnancy, itself, can't be used to obligate anyone beyond that pair. In other words, if you can't afford it, don't get pregnant. I'm pretty sure you can guess where I stand on terminating a pregnancy, too.

As far as education goes, I'm a hard case. Does one's education obligate others to provide time or money by means of coercion? If the answer is yes, then it isn't a right. If one can educate themselves without obligating anyone else, then maybe we could consider it.

Now, let's step into the real world for a minute. Do I think everyone is better off with an educated citizenry? Sure. Do I think the government should seize property from the population to provide it? Maybe, but if and how much is a decision that the population gets to make, it's not a universal right.

My claim is that natural rights exist simultaneously between all people and and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.
Freedom of speech as not given to us by nature. We invented speech. Freedom of speech requires tolerance from everyone else. It's not money, but for some people more than others it does not constitute "nothing". Sometimes it does require money, for example when someone expressing themselves controversially requires police protection, or government-subsidised relocation, from people who don't like what they're saying.

The claim that something is a right makes it universally possessed by people. That's fine, as far as it goes, but the exercise of a false right obligates other people to ensure that it is granted. If we claim that medical care, for example, is a right, we have also decided to obligate some portion of our population to give up some portion of their property to pay for another's care.
The right to security is not given by nature, but would you deny that it is a right? We have the police to protect citizens from internal threats. That costs the taxpayer money. We have the military to protect citizens from external threats. That costs the taxpayer even more money. Are you going to say that the right to security cheapens "real rights"?

I'm pretty sure you can guess where I stand on terminating a pregnancy, too.
You're pro-choice, right? Liberals should get abortions, shouldn't they?

Didn't those Wisconsin schools teach definitions? How about accountable? If you perform this action, you will be accountable for its effects. I didn't say we were exempt from any personal responsiblity because we own our actions. Far from it, I, and only I, am responsible(accountable) for what I do. Can't use "The Devil made me do it" excuse.

i only ask because this line of attack seems to be stuck in a rather glaring and obvious contradiction, and was wondering if the definition of 'responsible' you are using hurts or helps things. it does, after all, have at least two distinct meanings, either of which would make some amount of sense in the context.

I simply claim that a 'right' is something that can be exercised without putting an obligation on another person. The right to live is certainly valid. But that right can't obligate another for support.

right, and so it is not a violation of rights to allow your child to die by withholding food and shelter from them

I simply claim that a 'right' is something that can be exercised without putting an obligation on another person. The right to live is certainly valid. But that right can't obligate another for support. Once we start down that path, we can find that we have a 'right' to education and if we don't have the money, the professors and university should just give it to us. But, maybe I also have the right to travel, as I've said before, that doesn't mean that I should be entitled to a free round trip ticket and lodging at my destination.

You are absolutely right to the extent that you go, but the problem is that you haven't followed Locke's argument to the proper conclusion.

By your logic, it is okay to infer that there is a right to free speech, since there is a definate natural need for such a right (it would be absurd to suggest, for instance, that people have the right to life but never have any right to verbally inform others of the needs required to sustain that life), and such a right carries no necessary obligation upon others, beyond simple prudence and reason, to listen to that speech and act upon it.

The problem, of course, is that you've made some false inferences based on an incorrect assessment of the state of nature. According to Locke, in the state of nature, people only own exactly what is required to survive and what they can reasonably work. In other words, people don't own any more land than what they can farm with their own two hands, and no one owns any more food or goods than is required to sustain themselves. Your version of "right to property" does not follow this; in fact, it supposes exactly the opposite of what your premise of "obligation" supposes. If we were to follow your logic about an unrestricted and absolute right to property, then we would have to assume that despite my right to life, I am obliged to have no right to food to sustain that life if you own all the food, which is an absurd assumption to make and completely contrary to what the stated goal of "right to property" was about in the first place.

Freedom of speech as not given to us by nature. We invented speech. Freedom of speech requires tolerance from everyone else. It's not money, but for some people more than others it does not constitute "nothing". Sometimes it does require money, for example when someone expressing themselves controversially requires police protection, or government-subsidised relocation, from people who don't like what they're saying.


The right to security is not given by nature, but would you deny that it is a right? We have the police to protect citizens from internal threats. That costs the taxpayer money. We have the military to protect citizens from external threats. That costs the taxpayer even more money. Are you going to say that the right to security cheapens "real rights"?


You're pro-choice, right? Liberals should get abortions, shouldn't they?
We do have the natural right to defend ourselves. When we possess rights, we are also able to delegate them. In the case of self-defense, we delegate a portion of it to the government, along with the consent to pay for it.


And I am pro-choice, but liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it.

You are absolutely right to the extent that you go, but the problem is that you haven't followed Locke's argument to the proper conclusion.

By your logic, it is okay to infer that there is a right to free speech, since there is a definate natural need for such a right (it would be absurd to suggest, for instance, that people have the right to life but never have any right to verbally inform others of the needs required to sustain that life), and such a right carries no necessary obligation upon others, beyond simple prudence and reason, to listen to that speech and act upon it.

The problem, of course, is that you've made some false inferences based on an incorrect assessment of the state of nature. According to Locke, in the state of nature, people only own exactly what is required to survive and what they can reasonably work. In other words, people don't own any more land than what they can farm with their own two hands, and no one owns any more food or goods than is required to sustain themselves. Your version of "right to property" does not follow this; in fact, it supposes exactly the opposite of what your premise of "obligation" supposes. If we were to follow your logic about an unrestricted and absolute right to property, then we would have to assume that despite my right to life, I am obliged to have no right to food to sustain that life if you own all the food, which is an absurd assumption to make and completely contrary to what the stated goal of "right to property" was about in the first place.
I'm trying to explore things, not set policy.

My right to property extends to what I earn. The reason that I'm paid is because I provide some service that another values. So we substitute wages for working the land and trade dollars for doughnuts. If I own all the food, it would be silly not to trade it for a few dollars, especially if I could use the dollars for something else that I didn't produce. Wouldn't it?

My labor is still my property, as is yours. The food that I've produced is still my property until we work out a bargain for it. If I have produced it, then why would it ever not be my property? And why would anyone else ever have a right to take it from me without my consent?

We do have the natural right to defend ourselves. When we possess rights, we are also able to delegate them. In the case of self-defense, we delegate a portion of it to the government, along with the consent to pay for it.
I see absolutely no difference between government-funded defence forces and government-funded healthcare.

And I am pro-choice, but liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it.
OK. Must have been a joke then. My bad.

That's not what I said. I said you are responsible if you do cause harm.
He's talking about child neglect, not child abuse. Neglecting to care for your child doesn't directly harm them, but beating him up does. Neglect your child and you'll see just how "natural" that right to life is.

Not providing health care for someone who can't afford it, could cause them to die. That's the same as child neglect.

My labor is still my property, as is yours. The food that I've produced is still my property until we work out a bargain for it. If I have produced it, then why would it ever not be my property? And why would anyone else ever have a right to take it from me without my consent?
Well, when your 'right' to private property interferes with someone's right to life, I'd say your consent would be unimportant. I don't think you have some natural right to withhold food from someone who will die without it and has no way of 'bargaining' with you for it.

right, and so it is not a violation of rights to allow your child to die by withholding food and shelter from them
No that's not true. As I stated in a reply to Sinhue, a pregnancy and the resultant child is a responsibility that is derived from prior actions. You can shirk the responsibility but must bear the consequences of it.

right, and so it is not a violation of rights to allow your child to die by withholding food and shelter from them

It seems to me that you are confusing rights with the responsibilities derived from rights. It is not a violation of your rights to withhold food and water but it is a failure to fulfill your responsibilities that are paired with those rights.

Well, when your 'right' to private property interferes with someone's right to life, I'd say your consent would be unimportant. I don't think you have some natural right to withhold food from someone who will die without it and has no way of 'bargaining' with you for it.
There's no way to answer without sounding like an ass, but it's like this: Life is tough.

Since it is a ridiculous proposition that I am obligated to support each and every person that demands my support, the only conclusion is that I'm only obligated to support those that I'm responsible for. That's my family and any others that I choose to support. How I deal with charity is completely and totally my choice.

No that's not true. As I stated in a reply to Sinhue, a pregnancy and the resultant child is a responsibility that is derived from prior actions. You can shirk the responsibility but must bear the consequences of it.

so it is a violation of rights to exercise your 'ownership' of yourself if it causes indirect harm, and isn't a violation of rights to force people to fulfill obligations? but at the same time "a right is something that can be exercised without putting an obligation on another person"?

i'm confused.

or rather, you are.

There's no way to answer without sounding like an ass, but it's like this: Life is tough.

Since it is a ridiculous proposition that I am obligated to support each and every person that demands my support, the only conclusion is that I'm only obligated to support those that I'm responsible for. That's my family and any others that I choose to support. How I deal with charity is completely and totally my choice.Arggh...can you see again how incompatible our worldviews are, and why any attempt to agree on a universal set of rights would be impossible? Perhaps it is because of the narrow Western view of who individuals are 'responsible' for. I don't know. It is an alien viewpoint to me. We could never let someone in our community starve...but perhaps it is true of you as well...you simply do not have the same concept of community?

I find so much of what you say to be inherently contradictory. Which is fine...people can be full of contradictions. But I just hope you see it.

I'm trying to explore things, not set policy.

My right to property extends to what I earn. The reason that I'm paid is because I provide some service that another values. So we substitute wages for working the land and trade dollars for doughnuts. If I own all the food, it would be silly not to trade it for a few dollars, especially if I could use the dollars for something else that I didn't produce. Wouldn't it?

My labor is still my property, as is yours. The food that I've produced is still my property until we work out a bargain for it. If I have produced it, then why would it ever not be my property? And why would anyone else ever have a right to take it from me without my consent?

Well, you have two problems with your line of assessment. The first is that if we're assuming a standardized, regularized currency and binding contracts, then we're talking about a society no longer in the state of nature.

The second is that the society you've described is one that, in Locke's view, is simply not going to work. The reason why should be fairly obvious: you've assumed a social contract that for a great many poor people is worse for them than the state of nature. When it so happens that life in the state of nature, however bad the inconveniences of such a state may be, is actually preferable than life under a government that refuses to legally allow them the means to preserve their lives, then why are you surprised when people start responding to your lack of consent with pitchforks and pillaging?

It seems that you don't quite understand what rights are based on according to Locke, because you seem to think that 1) these rights derive from some mystically holy and sacrosanct place, and 2) any state that abridges those rights for any reason is therefore violating the holiness and sacrosanctness of said rights. This is not the case. Rather, Locke assumed that people have the right to life, and by extension the right to liberty and property, because he assumed that left to his own devices, these are the things that the rational man would even to the point of lethal force defend, and justifiably so. It is simply ridiculous to assume that people will care more about the laws that are actively working to starve them then their own well-being, but unfortunately that assumption is precisely what your ideal state seems to presume. Then you wonder why such states are inherently unstable and usually revert to the state of nature.

It seems to me that you are confusing rights with the responsibilities derived from rights. It is not a violation of your rights to withhold food and water but it is a failure to fulfill your responsibilities that are paired with those rights.

according to the chain of argument i'm going after here, rights create no obligations.

There is no wealth or property that can be created alone.

What would your people think of a song. Certainly singing has a value, as many people pay to hear singers. Yet it is entirely possible for a person to create a song completely on his/her own.

Our bodies have a potential to produce that is valuable separate of any resources.

There's no way to answer without sounding like an ass, but it's like this: Life is tough.
You're damn right life is tough, so stop whining about that new car you want and give your money to the needy! :p

You're just using another way to say that the right to private property takes precedence over the right to life.

Yet it is entirely possible for a person to create a song completely on his/her own.

no it isn't.

songs spring from musical and lyrical influences and are largely expressions of cultural ideas and beliefs. without a musical community to take musical inspiration from, and a language community to take ideas and ways of expressing them from, you couldn't create a song.

no it isn't.

songs spring from musical and lyrical influences and are largely expressions of cultural ideas and beliefs. without a musical community to take musical inspiration from, and a language community to take ideas and ways of expressing them from, you couldn't create a song.

Then how was the first song written?

But my point was that a single person give a song a physical embodiment that can be enjoyed by others.

property rights, as far as I am concerned, are lesser to the right to life. The right to life includes adequate healthcare.

Why does a right to life include a right to healthcare?

By this logic a right to free speech includes a right for someone to blow air into your lungs.

according to the chain of argument i'm going after here, rights create no obligations.
All rights inherently create responsibility. You have the right to your labor and are responsible for what your labor creates. You cannot have rights without responsibility. I'd argue that they are part of the definition of a right.

I consider the possession of private property to be a bogus right, in particular 'ownership' of land and resources.

Your concept of natural rights is based on your ideology, and repugnant to me. Your ideology is not universal, and there are no rights but what we afford ourselves.
Really, so your computer is not yours? The problem with getting rid of land ownership with current population levels is that it quickly defaults to one of two situations. Anarchy, or totalitarianism. Take your pick.

The alternative is to get rid of the population levels of course, and since we do not yet have nanotech manufacturing, that means getting rid of pretty much all modern tech as well, and killing a whole host of people. Are you willing to pull the trigger in order to see the visualization of your ideals?

Stupid Libertarian definitions of rights damage people's actual freedoms. The idea seems to be, that theoretical rights are more important than the practical rights.

Nonsense. The right to travel means zilch if you can't afford it. Libertarian ideals will only create a regressive society where the few exploit the many, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The governments role is important in ensuring social justice, law and order, and generally keeping the country ticking.

Back to the theoritical > real bit again, this extends to crime. The government shouldn't make efforts to reduce crime, merely react to the crime that happens. If people get poor, let them it's their own fault, and it's their kids fault that they're poor. Whereas the rich man's kid is merely reaping the rewards of his intelligent step to be born into that enviroment. But, Libertarians in the bizzare world they inhabit consider these two to have equal rights. I'm sure it's great comfort to the starving kid that he has the right to eat the food he can't afford.

Somehow, somehow it's worse to obligate an employer not to racially discriminate against a black employee or applicant then for the employee or applicant to suffer because of the colour of their skin. They would argue that the employee could simply seek work elsewhere, seeing as there'll be more jobs without any minimum wage. hahahahahaha.

It's worse to take a hundred dollars from a man born into wealth, then to let an innocent child die of hunger.

One of the best examples I heard (and this is from the horses' mouth) is that people would have the right to be in trade unions and employers would similarily have the right to choose not to recognise them, and fire them all on the spot. :D :D :D (To the slow: the flaw here is that the right is worthless without an obligating the employer)

Quite simply, Libertarianism is one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard. I've heard an argument that the reason this idealogy is so popular on the web is that you lot are all supergeeks who don't understand that society is real, that groups are important and that government has to recognise the big picture before the one example, the state before the resident, the race before the man. It would make sense. The fact is, if this stupid idea was actually to be implimented there would be riots.

Now, stop making threads like this, you're just embarassing yourselves.

Then how was the first song written?

it probably evolved out of a group of proto-chimps banging on a hollow log and hooting at each other.

actually, i don't know that there really was a 'first song'. i'd rather expect a progression of elaborations on things, starting with ones that clearly weren't songs and eventually getting to ones that clearly were.

I can safely assume the OP does not support the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, yes? As the right to own a gun does not seem to be a natural right in any respect.

And those 'stupid socialist-commie' definitions of rights HAVE no definition. How can you abitrarily declare something a right that someone MUST have without creating a logical and reasoned base for it? It leads to unsustainable entitlements that stifle growth and destroy society. Libertarian definitions may not be the best but at least they are systemically applied.

Quite simply, Libertarianism is one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard. I've heard an argument that the reason this idealogy is so popular on the web is that you lot are all supergeeks who don't understand that society is real, that groups are important and that government has to recognise the big picture before the one example, the state before the resident, the race before the man. It would make sense. The fact is, if this stupid idea was actually to be implimented there would be riots.

Now, stop making threads like this, you're just embarassing yourselves.
Okay Hobbes, go back to your hole.

I can safely assume the OP does not support the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, yes? As the right to own a gun does not seem to be a natural right in any respect.
It's a direct extension of the right to self defense, actually. Haven't you heard the saying "God made every man different, but Sam Colt made them equal." or a version thereof?

It's a direct extension of the right to self defense, actually. Haven't you heard the saying "God made every man different, but Sam Colt made them equal." or a version thereof?

But it's not the actual natural right to self defense. Depriving someone of a gun is not depriving someone of the ability to defend themselves.

Libertarian definitions may not be the best but at least they are systemically applied
...and internally contradictory

...and internally contradictory
how so?

There was a thread a couple days ago that made me think about all the things that people claim a 'right' to have. Job security was the particular 'right', but people also claim to have a right to health care, food, housing, to name a few. What is the difference between these 'rights' and the rights that are naturally possessed by all people?

My claim is that natural rights exist simultaneously between all people and and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

The claim that something is a right makes it universally possessed by people. That's fine, as far as it goes, but the exercise of a false right obligates other people to ensure that it is granted. If we claim that medical care, for example, is a right, we have also decided to obligate some portion of our population to give up some portion of their property to pay for another's care. If we applied this same standard to free travel, it would require a round trip ticket and a hotel room every time I wanted to travel.

My complaint, here, isn't with the government provision of some services. But when we start to claim that nice-to-have things are natural rights, the real meaning of those natural rights is lost.

[applause] Absolutely. These so-called "positive economic rights" are no rights at all, and cause the degradation of true rights.

I can safely assume the OP does not support the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, yes? As the right to own a gun does not seem to be a natural right in any respect.

Actually that is a natural right, but not all natural rights need to be completely protected.

I agree completely. When the law was passed banning smoking in pubs in UK, supporters claimed the law infringed their right to be free of smoke:headbang: (not once mentioning the right to private property).

Positive rights have gone so far in UK that Blair is forced to talk about "rights and responsibilities". Real rights do not have responsibilties and parasitic scroungers are a symptom caused by losing sight of this fact.

So its illegal for you to pull out a gun and start shooting people in a pub, but it should be OK for you to smoke your cancer sticks and murder them with second hand smoke? Great argument there. They don't fall down and start bleeding immediately, so it's not harming them. My state just had a law passed that keeps people from smoking where it can harm them and I couldn't be happier (except, perhaps, if the law was actually followed.

Your rights extend as far as the bridge of my nose and not an inch further.

I consider the possession of private property to be a bogus right, in particular 'ownership' of land and resources.

Your concept of natural rights is based on your ideology, and repugnant to me. Your ideology is not universal, and there are no rights but what we afford ourselves.
Seconded.

Incidentally, there is a similar thread about this topic, which deals with the slightly narrower concept of human rights: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471512

I would agree. The bogus right to private property diminishes the quality of the genuine right to life and the equally important right to live.

My claim is that natural rights exist simultaneously between all people and and imposes no obligation on another. I both agree and disagree. I don't have a problem with this definition, but this definition says nothing about societies, which exist outside of the state of nature. One of the reasons that people join societies is for mutual protection of rights. Therefore, the members of a society cannot be said to have a right unless the society actively protects individuals from incursions against rights. This means that everyone in a society is obligated to protect everyone else within the society from incursions against rights, which means that rights do, indeed, impose obligations.

In the case of self-defense, we delegate a portion of it to the government, along with the consent to pay for it.Exactly. And the government has the right to determine how to use that payment to best prepare for the defense of the population, be it with harsh jail sentences or by using that payment to redistribute income.

Actually that is a natural right, but not all natural rights need to be completely protected.

How is owning a weapon a natural right?

How is owning a weapon a natural right?
I can't spend a lot of time on this today because I have customers coming at 9. But I'll add what I can.

How can a right to self defense exist without allowing the means necessary to exercise it? If all weapons were deemed illegal, what would we use to defend ourselves? Wit? That only works here and in a few other select places. Nope, we need access to means that make it possible to exercise the right of self-defense.

Seconded.
I repeat my inquiry

Really, so your computer is not yours? The problem with getting rid of land ownership with current population levels is that it quickly defaults to one of two situations. Anarchy, or totalitarianism. Take your pick.

The alternative is to get rid of the population levels of course, and since we do not yet have nanotech manufacturing, that means getting rid of pretty much all modern tech as well, and killing a whole host of people. Are you willing to pull the trigger in order to see the visualization of your ideals?

I can't spend a lot of time on this today because I have customers coming at 9. But I'll add what I can.

How can a right to self defense exist without allowing the means necessary to exercise it? If all weapons were deemed illegal, what would we use to defend ourselves? Wit? That only works here and in a few other select places. Nope, we need access to means that make it possible to exercise the right of self-defense.

How can a right to life exist without allowing the means necessary to exercise it? If accessible healthcare were deemed illegal, what would we use to heal ourselves? Money? That only works here and in a few other select places. Nope, we need access to means that make it possible to exercise the right of life.

I have to agree with those who posted in this thread with respect to the idea that rights are socially defined and societally protected. If the society does not respect and enforce the right, it is no longer a right, merely a hope.

I can't spend a lot of time on this today because I have customers coming at 9. But I'll add what I can.

How can a right to self defense exist without allowing the means necessary to exercise it? If all weapons were deemed illegal, what would we use to defend ourselves? Wit? That only works here and in a few other select places. Nope, we need access to means that make it possible to exercise the right of self-defense.

Our fists.

How can a right to life exist without allowing the means necessary to protect it?

What would your people think of a song. Certainly singing has a value, as many people pay to hear singers. Yet it is entirely possible for a person to create a song completely on his/her own.

Our bodies have a potential to produce that is valuable separate of any resources.
Thanks, Vitt! Finally someone stepped up to that!

I have to admit I was leading a bit, because a song is exactly what I was thinking of when 'intellectual property' was mentioned. Our songs may be expressed by a particular person first, but they don't come from us. They come from the manitow, (the spirits, which isn't the greatest translation of the concept, but will do for now). We discover these songs in dreams or visions. They can be expressed through us, but they belong to the people. You don't hoard a song, and claim ownership of it...songs are teachings that are meant for all people, not just a few.

Yes, our bodies can help produce creations that are valuable beyond the sum total of the resources used. Clearly, a tipi is more valuable than the just the poles and hide used to construct it. But whereas Western society seems to have this need to attach a value to everything in order to compare importance, or to justify why something is important (there are some who can not, for example, justify caring about a right unless it has some tangible value) we don't imbue things with a value beyond what they possess for the use they are made.

So while we have personal property, that may only be used by us, that doesn't mean we have private property. Songs, stories, artwork, etc, have great value for us as songs, stories and artwork...but these things are for everyone.

Really, so your computer is not yours? The problem with getting rid of land ownership with current population levels is that it quickly defaults to one of two situations. Anarchy, or totalitarianism. Take your pick.


Rather than repeat myself, please read the rest of my posts on this issue:)

Thanks, Vitt! Finally someone stepped up to that!

I have to admit I was leading a bit, because a song is exactly what I was thinking of when 'intellectual property' was mentioned. Our songs may be expressed by a particular person first, but they don't come from us. They come from the manitow, (the spirits, which isn't the greatest translation of the concept, but will do for now). We discover these songs in dreams or visions. They can be expressed through us, but they belong to the people. You don't hoard a song, and claim ownership of it...songs are teachings that are meant for all people, not just a few.

Yes, our bodies can help produce creations that are valuable beyond the sum total of the resources used. Clearly, a tipi is more valuable than the just the poles and hide used to construct it. But whereas Western society seems to have this need to attach a value to everything in order to compare importance, or to justify why something is important (there are some who can not, for example, justify caring about a right unless it has some tangible value) we don't imbue things with a value beyond what they possess for the use they are made.

So while we have personal property, that may only be used by us, that doesn't mean we have private property. Songs, stories, artwork, etc, have great value for us as songs, stories and artwork...but these things are for everyone.

But even you agree that these "manitow" gave the song (or the idea for the song) to YOU. Not your neighbor, not your uncle, YOU. And as they have never made me sign (or agree to) any form of contract for it, it is then fair to assume they never made you agree to one, the song is then YOURS. A gift, if you will, for YOUR use. Doesn't it then make sense that you have the right to make someone agree to something before you give it to them?

But even you agree that these "manitow" gave the song (or the idea for the song) to YOU. Not your neighbor, not your uncle, YOU. And as they have never made me sign (or agree to) any form of contract for it, it is then fair to assume they never made you agree to one, the song is then YOURS. A gift, if you will, for YOUR use. Doesn't it then make sense that you have the right to make someone agree to something before you give it to them?
No silly, the manitow give the song to the people. The person who expresses it just happens to be the one to channel that song. He or she doesn't own the song. It isn't for your use, it is for the use of the people. You are part of the people, so it is also for you.

And signing a legal contract with the manitow? That is hilarious! You people and your paper:) The contract is implicit...the song is not for you alone, unless it actually IS a song for you alone...for bravery or sickness...but those songs aren't shared, and are still not considered property.

And what on earth would you 'make someone agree' to before you 'give' them the song? We have many stories of people who upset the balance by hoarding songs or healings out of pride, and who pay for this. Yes, some of our people have asked for medicine bundles, or positions of power in return for songs, but it always ends badly. You can not lay claim to what is given freely to all.

No silly, the manitow give the song to the people. The person who expresses it just happens to be the one to channel that song. He or she doesn't own the song. It isn't for your use, it is for the use of the people. You are part of the people, so it is also for you.

And signing a legal contract with the manitow? That is hilarious! You people and your paper:) The contract is implicit...the song is not for you alone, unless it actually IS a song for you alone...for bravery or sickness...but those songs aren't shared, and are still not considered property.

I only mentioned the contract as a binding agreement. Not all contracts are written down (such as tort law).

Anyway, if the manitow decided to channel the song to you, it still came to you and nobody else. I fail to see how this can make it anything else but yours. You can then choose to tell everyone for nothing, tell someone for something, tell no-one, or any variation of those. If you decide to be greedy with it, can the manitow do anything to stop you? They certainly don't stop giving "greedy" western song-artists music when the only sell it.

I only mentioned the contract as a binding agreement. Not all contracts are written down (such as tort law).

Anyway, if the manitow decided to channel the song to you, it still came to you and nobody else. I fail to see how this can make it anything else but yours.
That's because you are working from a very different worldview than us.

You can then choose to tell everyone for nothing, tell someone for something, tell no-one, or any variation of those.
You are obligated to share the song if it is for the people.

If you decide to be greedy with it, can the manitow do anything to stop you?
Not to stop you, perhaps, but there will absolutely be consequences. Our oral histories have many such examples. The thought is almost unthinkable...it makes no sense to lay ownership, and demand payment for something that is not meant for you alone.

They certainly don't stop giving "greedy" western song-artists music when the only sell it.Your songs are not our songs, and your people don't understand how to live in balance. This we know.

By the way...your name...it makes me think of a Dr. Suess character:)

As for the name, I was irritated that all the good ones were taken, went to my refrigerator for a snack and ,low and behold, there was much fuzzy green stuff.

We obviously have different world views, as i can't ever remember a spirit wispering all the answers into my ear. I was just trying to see things from your perspective. BTW, how do you determine what is for you and what is for everyone?

EDIT: i don't eat snakes. on purpose

As for the name, I was irritated that all the good ones were taken, went to my refrigerator for a snake and ,low and behold, there was much fuzzy green stuff. Ewww...did you get rid of it before it evolved and started demanding rights?:)

We obviously have different world views, Absolutely...though intellectually I understand yours...I just can't accept it for my own.
as i can't ever remember a spirit wispering all the answers into my ear. I was just trying to see things from your perspective. BTW, how do you determine what is for you and what is for everyone? Hehehehe...the manitow don't whisper in your ear. They come to you in dreams, or in visions. Sometimes we seek the visions, and sometimes we receive them without warning. It is different for everyone, and sometimes hard to interpret. But the significance of our songs is also another difference...they are not just about entertainment. Our songs have a purpose. We have healing songs, songs for strength, for luck, for childbirth, for death. All of these songs came to us from the manitow, though it was always a person who revealed them to us. Some songs, like I said, are personal. If they are for you alone, you don't share them at all. That doesn't mean you sell them...your songs are not meant for others. Some songs are guarded, this is true. Our healers would share songs among each other, but not with everyone, because songs have power, and should not be misused.

But anyway. The point is, in my culture, the concept of private property never existed, and even still, we do not really understand it. We live in societies that value this concept as a right, and we are in some ways bound to it, but we do not embrace it or value it the way that you do. It is a fundamental divide between us, and one of the main reason I can not accept that there are 'universal' rights...because what your people consider to be universal does not match what my people consider to be universal. The only way you can prove yourself 'right' is to destroy our worldview...which is something that has of course been attempted with great vigor. But even being 'right' in such a manner does not mean that your worldview is correct. Just dominant.

how so?

well, there's that nice bit where their love of 'liberty' requires them to allow both de facto and de jure slavery. and then there is the derivation of a right to property from a right to life, followed immediately by using the right to property as a trump over the right to life. and that's just for a start.

the child example i've been mentioning is a good demonstration. the answer given depends on whether the speaker prefers outright contradictions or reductio-esque conclusions from their own premises. murray rothbard exemplifies the latter in chapter 14 of "the ethics of liberty" by holding the position that logically follows from libertarian premises, namely, children are the property of their parents, to be sold or abandoned or neglected as the parents see fit.

the child example i've been mentioning is a good demonstration. the answer given depends on whether the speaker prefers outright contradictions or reductio-esque conclusions from their own premises. murray rothbard exemplifies the latter in chapter 14 of "the ethics of liberty" by holding the position that logically follows from libertarian premises, namely, children are the property of their parents, to be sold or abandoned or neglected as the parents see fit.

a link (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp) for interested parties.

i should mention that rothbard's position is the logically superior one given the premises. it is not a formal contradiction, it merely seems absurd to anyone who doesn't buy the premises in the first place (and essentially everyone who does).

well, there's that nice bit where their love of 'liberty' requires them to allow both de facto and de jure slavery. and then there is the derivation of a right to property from a right to life, followed immediately by using the right to property as a trump over the right to life. and that's just for a start.

the child example i've been mentioning is a good demonstration. the answer given depends on whether the speaker prefers outright contradictions or reductio-esque conclusions from their own premises. murray rothbard exemplifies the latter in chapter 14 of "the ethics of liberty" by holding the position that logically follows from libertarian premises, namely, children are the property of their parents, to be sold or abandoned or neglected as the parents see fit.
How does this occur? In a libertarian system, all parties are able to trade anything they own for any value they can get. If a person chooses to sell their labor, how is that slavery? The person can agree to the conditions that they will work in as a factor in the sale of their labor.

As for parents "owning" children, this is not the case. While parents are responsible for their children, they do not own them. They are guardians of their children's resources, labor or otherwise, and the misuse of it is a crime for which they should be held accountable.

Rather than repeat myself, please read the rest of my posts on this issue:)
Fine, come up with a working widespread system then that can advance technologically past sayyy, the iron age. It's extremely doubtful one could. Your system sounds fine and dandy as a flight of fancy, but it would never work on a large scale.

How does this occur? In a libertarian system, all parties are able to trade anything they own for any value they can get. If a person chooses to sell their labor, how is that slavery? The person can agree to the conditions that they will work in as a factor in the sale of their labor.

given the right conditions, people will sell themselves into explicit slavery. and more specifically, have done so and currently are doing so. under pro-capitalist libertarian principles, this isn't an evil to be combatted, but a feature of the system. outlawing it would be a violation of libertarian rights. that's the de jure part.

the de facto part is more insidious and happens because of the staunch refusal of pro-capitalist libertarians to recognize a power relationship when they see one, if the power isn't the state (though there is a growing group within the american-style libertarians who are coming to recognize this and are moving back towards the older socialist libertarian tradition from which they indirectly came). their 'libertarianism' causes them to embrace the idea of the ridiculously tiny elite that owns 90% of everything becoming feudal lords or absolute dictators.

As for parents "owning" children, this is not the case. While parents are responsible for their children, they do not own them. They are guardians of their children's resources, labor or otherwise, and the misuse of it is a crime for which they should be held accountable.

as rothbard rightly recognized, the addition of this bit of enforceable 'responsibility' (that violates the already stated libertarian right to control over your own labor and such) throws open the door to all sorts of things. like a right to healthcare.

besides, if anything is the "fruit of your labor", a child is. shit, that's almost certainly where that phrase originated.

Fine, come up with a working widespread system then that can advance technologically past sayyy, the iron age. It's extremely doubtful one could. Your system sounds fine and dandy as a flight of fancy, but it would never work on a large scale.

Her system works quite well. Her people didn't live on a 'large scale.' It was the natural order of things until large scale farming dramatically increased populations outside North and South America. There would be no need to even get to the Iron Age. The problem, is that when confronted with the Eurasian worldview, it's difficult to compete with hordes of grain-fed migrants, who think of land as property. The Industrial Revolution takes it even further.

So, our worldview is enhancing the quality of our lives (some of us), but at what eventual cost? We can't turn back the clock, but we can learn a few lessons.

Why does a right to life include a right to healthcare?

By this logic a right to free speech includes a right for someone to blow air into your lungs.
Healthcare prevents death. Healthcare also protects the right to free speech because people use their bodies to speak and write.

Back to the theoritical > real bit again, this extends to crime. The government shouldn't make efforts to reduce crime, merely react to the crime that happens.
Yeah this annoys me about libertarians, liberals, etc. They don't want to understand the value of pre-emptive action.

But it's not the actual natural right to self defense. Depriving someone of a gun is not depriving someone of the ability to defend themselves.
That's like saying the right to free speech doesn't extend to the written word.

If all weapons were deemed illegal, what would we use to defend ourselves?
Karate! Seriously though, Sdaeriji's argument is easily disproved (see above).

[applause] Absolutely. These so-called "positive economic rights" are no rights at all, and cause the degradation of true rights.
His argument is fundamentally flawed, because he assumes that private property is a natural right.

So its illegal for you to pull out a gun and start shooting people in a pub, but it should be OK for you to smoke your cancer sticks and murder them with second hand smoke? Great argument there. They don't fall down and start bleeding immediately, so it's not harming them.
Bad argument. If people think a pub is too smoky for them, they can leave. Generally they won't get a chance at making a choice like that if someone starts shooting them.

Fine, come up with a working widespread system then that can advance technologically past sayyy, the iron age. It's extremely doubtful one could. Your system sounds fine and dandy as a flight of fancy, but it would never work on a large scale.
Of course it could, if you actually wanted it to. There is nothing inherently destabilising in the concept of communal instead of private property. In saying that individuals can not own land or resources, but that rather, all people are entitled to make use of land and resources in a manner that respects the environment, and respects the usages of others, you are not inviting wholesale theft of land and resources that you refuse to claim. You can call property 'state owned' if you want, as long as the reality of the situation is not in fact ownership, but stewardship.

Her system works quite well. Her people didn't live on a 'large scale.' It was the natural order of things until large scale farming dramatically increased populations outside North and South America. There would be no need to even get to the Iron Age. The problem, is that when confronted with the Eurasian worldview, it's difficult to compete with hordes of grain-fed migrants, who think of land as property. The Industrial Revolution takes it even further.

So, our worldview is enhancing the quality of our lives (some of us), but at what eventual cost? We can't turn back the clock, but we can learn a few lessons.
Don't forget that in many ways, my people still live communally. Land is held together...though we don't think of it as owning the land, rather having land that still remains accessible to us. No native person living on a reserve actually owns any of that land. They can not buy or sell land in the reserved lands. No one can buy or sell resources from those reserved lands. Decisions about resource use and allocation are made by the community. This absolutely can work in this technological age. But it is not communism, it is communalism. Though many won't see the difference, the differences are still there.

That's like saying the right to free speech doesn't extend to the written word.

No, it's like saying that the right to life doesn't extend to health care. Which is what is being said. Otherwise we're arguing that man was denied his natural right for thousands of years before the advent of firearms.

No, it's like saying that the right to life doesn't extend to health care. Which is what is being said. Otherwise we're arguing that man was denied his natural right for thousands of years before the advent of firearms.
Mmmm...that whole 'right to bear arms' is so uniquely USian...a unique cultural trait if you will.

No, it's like saying that the right to life doesn't extend to health care. Which is what is being said.
Hence the contradictions of right-wing thought. The right to self-defence includes the right to own guns, but the right to life does not include the right to health care. This does not add up.

Otherwise we're arguing that man was denied his natural right for thousands of years before the advent of firearms.
Doesn't have to be firearms, just whatever weapons were considered good at the time. Just using firearms as an examlpe because they're the best (well, that are within reach of ordinary people) that exist now.

Hence the contradictions of right-wing thought. The right to self-defence includes the right to own guns, but the right to life does not include the right to health care. This does not add up.

The right to own guns means that you have the right to aquire guns. It does not mean that you have the right to get a gun free of charge because you have a right to self-defence. Applied to health care it means that you may purchase medical assistance, not that it must be given to you. Please note the difference. You have the right to aquire both in a free exchange of goods or services. To require that someone provide you with medical care without an equal agreement for you to pay for it is absurd and a violation on their right to be free from coercion.

Fine, come up with a working widespread system then that can advance technologically past sayyy, the iron age. It's extremely doubtful one could.

demonstrate this.

How is owning a weapon a natural right?

Natural rights are those rights that are not based in the positive law of society. Without the positive law of society, one would be able to own any and all guns that one could obtain.

Thanks, Vitt! Finally someone stepped up to that!

I have to admit I was leading a bit, because a song is exactly what I was thinking of when 'intellectual property' was mentioned. Our songs may be expressed by a particular person first, but they don't come from us. They come from the manitow, (the spirits, which isn't the greatest translation of the concept, but will do for now). We discover these songs in dreams or visions. They can be expressed through us, but they belong to the people. You don't hoard a song, and claim ownership of it...songs are teachings that are meant for all people, not just a few.

Yes, our bodies can help produce creations that are valuable beyond the sum total of the resources used. Clearly, a tipi is more valuable than the just the poles and hide used to construct it. But whereas Western society seems to have this need to attach a value to everything in order to compare importance, or to justify why something is important (there are some who can not, for example, justify caring about a right unless it has some tangible value) we don't imbue things with a value beyond what they possess for the use they are made.

So while we have personal property, that may only be used by us, that doesn't mean we have private property. Songs, stories, artwork, etc, have great value for us as songs, stories and artwork...but these things are for everyone.

Thats an interesting look into the culture, do you really adhere to it, or are you just representing it?

I actually firmly disagree with intellectual property. While one can own an idea, if one shares it, it automatically becomes common property.

I really do admire the society you have described and would be happy inside of it, but I unfortunately feel that it cannot cope with the scale and scope of modern society.

Natural rights are those rights that are not based in the positive law of society. Without the positive law of society, one would be able to own any and all guns that one could obtain.

Ah, so there should be no rules preventing an individual from having nuclear weapons?

Healthcare prevents death. Healthcare also protects the right to free speech because people use their bodies to speak and write.

The right to life is a negative right, all natural rights are negative rights. A negative right only has obligations on others from not performing certain activities. For example, the right to free speech is a negative right, in that it states that no one else can undertake actions that keep you from voicing your opinion. The right to life is a negative right in that it states that no one can undertake actions that keep you from living.

As the right to life is a negative right, it does not obligate anyone to actually prolong your life, it only prevents people from shortening it.

The right to healthcare is a separate positive right.

Note that this is not an argument against the right to healthcare, only a argument that healthcare is not provided for by the right to life.

Ah, so there should be no rules preventing an individual from having nuclear weapons?

Because something is a natural right, it doesn't have to be upheld by the government.

That is the purpose of positive law, to provide for the shortcomings of natural law, as natural law is not very often unjust.

The right to own guns means that you have the right to aquire guns. It does not mean that you have the right to get a gun free of charge because you have a right to self-defence. Applied to health care it means that you may purchase medical assistance, not that it must be given to you. Please note the difference. You have the right to aquire both in a free exchange of goods or services. To require that someone provide you with medical care without an equal agreement for you to pay for it is absurd and a violation on their right to be free from coercion.So then instead of saying that people have the right to self-defense, you should state that people have the right to acquire self-defense. Instead of saying that people have the right to property, you should say that people have the right to acquire property. Instead of saying that people have the right to life, you should instead say that people have the right to be free from murder. To do otherwise is misleading.

Don't forget that in many ways, my people still live communally. Land is held together...though we don't think of it as owning the land, rather having land that still remains accessible to us. No native person living on a reserve actually owns any of that land. They can not buy or sell land in the reserved lands. No one can buy or sell resources from those reserved lands. Decisions about resource use and allocation are made by the community. This absolutely can work in this technological age. But it is not communism, it is communalism. Though many won't see the difference, the differences are still there.

I can see this style of communalism working in an extremely decentralized democratic federation. It's hard imagining trying to apply it to the urban sprawl like in the Golden Horseshoe area around the Great Lakes though. The ideas of individualism and free market economics have created a significant 'disconnect' between people and their community, not to mention migrating worker patterns. Also, the inherent drive to invent and progress in the western capitalistic worldview is hard to envision in communalism.

Have you read "The Years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson? I could blather on about the book (I won't), but there's a really interesting segment of the book that deals with the Iroquois Confederation, and how it may have evolved and changed North American society if left to evolve without interference.

The right to own guns means that you have the right to aquire guns. It does not mean that you have the right to get a gun free of charge because you have a right to self-defence. Applied to health care it means that you may purchase medical assistance, not that it must be given to you. Please note the difference. You have the right to aquire both in a free exchange of goods or services. To require that someone provide you with medical care without an equal agreement for you to pay for it is absurd and a violation on their right to be free from coercion.
Sorry, I can't believe I missed on that point. You bring up an interesting idea. Maybe people should be able to get a gun for free?

Because something is a natural right, it doesn't have to be upheld by the government.

That is the purpose of positive law, to provide for the shortcomings of natural law, as natural law is not very often unjust.

What makes this different?

To those reading: in a few steps, I'm going to go for the win and drop some truth about the right of the majority to restrict the individual and basically end a big Libertarian fallacy. Bring popcorn.

Hence the contradictions of right-wing thought. The right to self-defence includes the right to own guns, but the right to life does not include the right to health care. This does not add up.

Not true. Just because you have a right to own a gun, does not mean that someone must be forced to give you a gun, which is what you are arguing when you say there is a right to healthcare because there is a right to life. It's not illogical at all. Another example is like saying that the right to free speech forces everybody to pay attention to all the idiots in the world when they speak, which is utterly absurd.

In Estonia, Internet access is a human right.

Sounds silly at first, but the Estonian government has skipped one generation in technology - due to a stone-ageifying Soviet occupation - and started its operations directly from the computer age. There are no papers on the desk when the Estonian cabinet meets.

What makes this different?

Makes what different? Healthcare and gun control?

I think I have provided the difference between these two rights.

To those reading: in a few steps, I'm going to go for the win and drop some truth about the right of the majority to restrict the individual and basically end a big Libertarian fallacy. Bring popcorn.

So self-assured. I can guarantee that there have been far more compelling detractors to the libertarian ideology than you.

Makes what different? Healthcare and gun control?

I think I have provided the difference between these two rights.


No kid, nukes and guns. Try and keep up

No kid, nukes and guns. Try and keep up

The potential danger to society. The damage from a bullet and the damage from a nuclear weapon are quite a bit different.

Not to mention that a gun can be used responsibly as a tool or for recreation. A nuclear weapon has no such use.

Note: I am not opposed to gun control, but now I am going to argue with you because you are a cocky bastard.

The potential danger to society. The damage from a bullet and the damage from a nuclear weapon are quite a bit different.

Not to mention that a gun can be used responsibly as a tool or for recreation. A nuclear weapon has no such use.

Note: I am not opposed to gun control, but now I am going to argue with you because you are a cocky bastard.

Aren't you a libertarian - this whole business of natural law? If so, surely you are opposed to gun control? (Although the actual business of guns and nukes aren't really that relevant to my argument, they are simply symbolic)

Aren't you a libertarian - this whole business of natural law? If so, surely you are opposed to gun control? (Although the actual business of guns and nukes aren't really that relevant to my argument, they are simply symbolic)

Understanding the nature of rights does not lead one to be a libertarian. BTW, I think gun control is a rational judgement extending from the libertarian credo, but that negligence can be a form of harm.

But please, continue with your argument as if I completely opposed all forms of gun control. I have bit the hook and I want to see what is at the end of the reel.

You've taken all the joy out of it, I'm sure there's a real wacko hanging around who I can demolish though. It's a pretty great argument.

You've taken all the joy out of it, I'm sure there's a real wacko hanging around who I can demolish though. It's a pretty great argument.

Oh come on, I already stated that I do follow the libertarian credo, and you said that you were going to demolish it. I've seen in other threads that you have a strong dislike for libertarian ideology, so vent.

You can't talk about how great your argument is and then hold on to it, especially on NS General.

So I say there should be no form of gun control, you show me why I am wrong. Hell, I will represent any libertarian ideology, after all that is the central basis of this thread, negative natural rights versus society's positive rights.

And I can be pretty wacko at times, some will attest to that.

Greater londres, you're a tease.

Greater londres, you're a tease.Yeah. I wanna see the argument too, so I can use it against libertarians in other debates.

Yeah. I wanna see the argument too, so I can use it against libertarians in other debates.

Hell, don't we all want to be enlightened?

Hell, don't we all want to be enlightened?

i don't. i've given up on enlightenment for health reasons.

i don't. i've given up on enlightenment for health reasons.

It is the leading cause of heart disease and prostate cancer.

It is the leading cause of heart disease and prostate cancer.

no kidding. i nearly suffered a massive stroke while reading daily kos today, because in response to the revelation of yet another government torture program one of the various kossacks responded with,

"The only, only, only, ONLY solution left to this is to defeat Republicans in midterm elections."