Judging by this, you agree with me lol. As i said, they can be suppressed, secured or reclaimed. You gave examples of the first two. A lack of suppression is not the same as granting. For analogy, say you had 1million dollars and i held that money from you and only gave you $100per day, after a year I stop suppressing you and give you all your money for you to control. I didnt grant you any money did I? Btw ty dor participating, i had hoped to have more dialogues and get some interesting insights.
Thank you, Norse. I enjoy polite debates and especially like reading your stuff. You are a thoughtful, deep person. In your scenario, you didn't grant me additional money, but you did grant me the freedom to do with it as I please. This thread reminds me of the abortion issue. A human being determines whether or not another human will even be born. Our very existence right now is because our mothers allowed it. Hence, our rights are developed and determined by humans and it is up to humans to protect and defend those rights.
Ty for your kind words. Going back to my definition in OP, rights would be your abilities if you were the only human being on earth. Once there are two people, the dynamics change, but the rights dont go away. There has to be a mutual respect of and for the rights of others. In my example above that you commented on, i think you are viewing it backward. I didnt give you freedom, i ceased my suppression. Suppression requires action Freedom is passive Like animals at a zoo, letting them out into the wild isnt freeing them it is ceasing suppression.
First I'll agree that natural rights are something everyone is born with.. now my disagreements. a natural right is something that everyone in the world can perform at the exact same time without interfering with another person's right to perform this act. For instance we all can breath at the same time, we all can stand in our positions at the same time without interfering with another. Think of any act you can do without impeding on another's ability to to do the same at the same time, these are natural rights. Things like Medicine requires someone else to give up time and to perform it on another.....its not a natural right. Now these natural rights are derived from and based solely on the acknowledgment and interest of private property. It's not a contract but a natural right to have ownership of one's self. Most of our rights (not natural) our derived from the understanding of private property. If you own yourself then you own the extension of your labour and time performed. No one claimed to own the river, but no one denies he who draws a pitcher has ownership of that water. No one owns the berry Bush until one uses his labour and resources to water and care for the Bush so it produces 10x the amount nature provides. This person now logically owns the bush.This is how humans progressed from Hunter gather to a life of abundance. Without the acknowledgment and understanding of private property rights all other rights, natural or otherwise fall apart. No im no not drunk
- There doesn't have to be a mutual respect of those rights at all, and often there is very little mutual anything as far as humans are concerned.
You start out right in that we own the pitcher of water and not the river, so how did you jump to owning a bush? I'll ask again, do the birds own the plants that grow from the seeds they shit out? Do bees own the flowers that they pollinate?
Again it's a extension of one's labor.....you drew the pitcher of water you own it. You put work into the Bush it's fruit is yours. You till and amend the soil it's yours. This is not saying you can fly over some area droping seeds so you own everything. During the time of homesteading, when all of America was settled. No one would've or could claim all of say California for themselves. Only governments do this and its a huge waist of resources. No im no not drunk
Exactly. We have to take the good with the bad with liberty and not address violations with violations.
"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the `right' to education, the `'right' to health care, the `right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - P.J. O'Rourke, American writer and humorist.
The purpose of welfare is to mask the plundering of a nation, to placate its victims and avert a necessary revolution.
Like sadly the states of most religions today, the inception of welfare was 'in good heart. But to wolfs that matters little. So yeah technically, its the state of welfare now. But I think that distinction is important. Because anything that will replace welfare but empowerment and independence and education of humans everywhere will result as a weapon or a tool to be used for the strong to subjugate the weak. At the time of welfare inception with the information available currently to the elected officials that was the best course of action they could come up with. You want a better method? Make them understand, or find away to get educated elected officials who have a brain in that hollow cranial cavity that you usually get with a politician. Hence why the need to empower the weak, the chain is as strong as its weakest link, some of us have the wisdom and forethought to easily deduce that we need to find a way to work together as a species. Or dont you know whatever, build a wall and make America great again.
The system is working perfectly, exactly as it was designed to work. The only think broken is the minds off those loyal to it or who believe it can be changed to work for them. The core principal of freedom is the only notion to obey - Dimmu Borgir
I disagree with the original premise, that rights are somehow natural. I think they're an invention. Our rights only come from the ability to defend and maintain them with power of one sort or the other
Rights come from nowhere. You only have them if you have the power to take them. Same as laws, the only true laws are the laws of nature and physics.
Hope it's ok if I interject even though this question wasn't directed at me. It struck a cord. I didn't own myself until I was 15 years old. Prior to that, my abusive pathetic excuses for parents owned me. My mother chased me into my bedroom, trying to beat me as usual. I was attempting to jump out of my bedroom window. She was grabbing and trying to hit me at the same time. My head was her favorite target. I was holding a walkman in one of my hands. Something finally snapped inside of me, something strong and powerful. I spun around and clocked that cunt in the head with that walkman so hard she froze, completely stunned. I stopped running from her. I stopped cowering at the sight of her. I stared her down, dropped the walkman, and walked calmly right out the front door. It was both the best day, and worst day of my life. It was also the moment I took ownership of me, and stopped being their slave: a punching bag for the animal who gave birth to me and a blow up doll for her child raping husband. I took ownership of ME because I harnessed the power to do so. My rights didn't come out of thin air. My rights are not an entitlement. My right to exist as a free human being came because I was willing to FIGHT for them.