Do You Own a Gun?

[Yznhymr]

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

[Dagney]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

. I will never hurt anyone, make someone do something against their will like slavery, or force my ideals upon anyone else.

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.

[Aliantha]

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

[Yznhymr]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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...

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

Natural rights do exist, and they are enforced by nature. Also, nearly every philosopher who has ever existed on the planet agrees with this FACT. These include Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson, and if you believe in Jesus of Nazareth, him too.

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All those philosophers are outdated.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.

Only a few idiots and fools on the fringe disagree. That includes everyone you've listed.

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

here's the thing: while governments have the power to recognize and uphold our rights, or to take them from us....WE hold the power to uphold or overthrow the government.

this make the rights natural, and not bestowable. get it?

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.

Originally Posted by Dagney

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?

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

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.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

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

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

[Radar]

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

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)

99.9999% of humanity recognizes self-evident, natural rights that we're born with.

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.

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.

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.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Then you oppose the concept of the drivers' license?

[Aliantha]

From Wiki on natural rights:

The first philosopher who fully made natural rights the source of his moral and political philosophy was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes argued that it is human nature to love one's self best and seek one's own good (this is a view known as psychological egoism). Since it is unavoidable ("necessity of nature") for human beings to follow their nature, it becomes a right to do so. According to Hobbes, to deny this right is to deny that we have a right to be human, which would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to demand that carnivores reject meat or that fish stop swimming. However, this was not a right in the conventional sense of imposing obligations on others, but merely a "liberty." Therefore, we have no obligations by birth or nature, but only unlimited rights - leading to a situation known as the "war of all against all", in which human beings have to kill, steal and enslave others in order to stay alive. Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, causing human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract.

Hobbes objected to the attempt to derive rights from "natural law," arguing that law ("lex") and right ("jus") though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refer to the absence of obligations. Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional. This marked an important departure from medieval natural law theories which gave priority to obligations over rights. However, some thinkers such as Leo Strauss, maintained that Hobbes kept the primacy of natural law or moral obligation over natural rights, and thus did not fully break with medieval thought.

[Ibby]

Actually I rather do. I think that you should be taken OFF the road the moment you drive recklessly and that car companies should probably self-regulate and make sure you know how to drive before you buy a car, but... That's not the government.