OK, just for the sake of the argument, why don't we list what we might percieve as a natural right. We've had this one before (sorry to sound like a one trick pony, but anyway... ) but I'm not sure where. I'll start things off.

Natural right number one: The right to breath.

It's not a matter of what we "perceive" to be our rights. Our rights can't be listed because the list would be near infinite in length. You have the right to chew gum (if you've obtained the gun honestly), you have the right to walk back and forth across your own property, you have the right to do jumping jacks on your own property, etc.

We have the right to do ANYTHING we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

We don't have the right to physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

I agree with you as far as individual rights are concerned, but try and tell that to this person...

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u...ry/funny-1.gif

What kind of sneakers do you wear? Where do all of your clothes come from? Are you positive that something you purchased through normal trade (supported by the almighty evil capitalism) was not created at the hands of someone who was working against their will, forced into situations that they you would otherwise consider slavery?

In order to say that you think capitalism is wrong and that you want no parts of it, I would strongly suggest that you be ready to remove yourself from the grid totally - because the more you benefit from it - and as much as you may hate to admit to yourself that you do....really, you do. I heard being naked in a cave with only yourself for company is a wonderful way to live.

It seems fairly obvious that some people are a bit confused between what is a natural right and what is a right within society.

You can say that again. It was a long time ago, but I think we learned about Natural Rights and Legal Rights (enforced by a gov't or society) in college. Most folks fall in one camp or the other. What's the old argument? Is it better for one to die and all to live, or one to live and all to die? Or something like that. Basically individual vs. societal rights. Is that what you were referring to???

Dude, my brain is rusty...

No they are not enforced by nature. I can break you right to live by killing you. I can not change the speed of light.

All those philosophers are outdated. The heirarchy created by Aristotle was justsified for slavery and has been proven wrong by biologists.

All recent philosophers back me up.

More attacks huh? I can say the same thing about the other side as well.

From what it seems like, anyone that agrees with you is sane and anyone that disagrees with you is just a quack.


You still haven't proven natural rights. You just kept telling me that I have them and I am an idiot.

You have just proved that the people have the power to create and enforce their own rights. You have not proven natural rights, just that they can be enforced by the people.

I personally don't hurt anyone but it is inevidable that I am part of the system that does.

I am part of the system and I can't realisically get away from it except trying to change it. You can say the "if you don't like it just leave" line but that is a weak argument because it is unrealistic.

That's where governments come in and regulate the use of dangerous things.

What I'm stating is FACT, not opinion. If you disagree with me, you're not a quack. You're an idiot, a liar, or both. In any case, I'm right and you're wrong. 99.9999% of humanity recognizes self-evident, natural rights that we're born with. The very few others are antisocial schizoid psychopaths and are no different than Hitler in their beliefs if not their actions.

Modern philosophers do not back you up. Only idiots do.

And yes, natural laws are enforced by nature, including natural rights. You can violate natural laws like gravity by jumping into a rocket ship. This doesn't mean gravity ceases to exist. You can violate someones right to life by killing them. It doesn't mean they didn't have a right to life. You can silence people through force or coercion, but it doesn't mean they don't have the right to think and express themselves freely.

The valid role and scope of government does not include protecting us from the use of dangerous things. It does not include protecting us from ourselves. It does not include "regulating" things that have the potential to harm. It is to protect us from hostile invasions, and to protect us from harming each other (which has nothing to do with my previous sentence). The government is here to prevent harmful actions, not devices that someone might use to carry out harmful actions.

Regulating the use of dangerous things is part of preventing harmful actions.

You still haven't proven natural rights. You just kept telling me that I have them and I am an idiot. (I feel like I am repeating myself)

One, I would like to see you back that up because almost everyone I've talked too agrees with me.

Two, even if you were right about that stastic (you're not), it doesn't mean anything. 2,000 years ago you could say 99.9999% of the people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and we know just how right they were.

You do not violate gravity by getting in a rocket ship, gravity just has as much effect on you when you are moving away from Earth as you do when you are falling from a ten story building. Using that logic I can say that I break the law of gravity by jumping. I dare you to go up to a physicist and say that. I dare you.

You can only violate gravity by making it disappear, which is impossible.

I can say I have the natural right to own slaves and use the same arguments as you and we would be at the same place.

Absolutely not, HM. The government has no right to tell me I can't own a stick, a gun, a kite tube, or a Cornballer. When I use the stick, gun, kite tube, or Cornballer as a weapon against a person, then I'm in trouble.

Then you oppose the concept of the drivers' license?